Introduction
Truman’s decision to recognize a state of Israel in 1948 was received by the US Jewish leaders with a stream of adulatory press release and telegram. It is true that Truman was entitled to excessive praises for his unique aspect of statesmanship when he recognized the Israel state. Questions were however raised whether Truman had recognized Israel state out of his genuine support for Zionism or simply to safeguard the Jewish votes during the coming presidential election ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010). Truman emphasized and focused on the annihilation of the European Jewry which arguably formed his supreme illustration of compassion for the plight of Jews in Europe. Others questioned why Truman was genuine in ensuring the survival of Israel but refused to give them arms for their own defense.
Various factors had contributed to his perspective on the Jewish matters among them including his love for Bible story as a child and his association with various Jewish haberdashers Eddie Jacobson. Aronson (2015) asserts that u pon recognition of Israeli as a state, the US went ahead to create policies that created a strong relationship between the two states. One can argue that the relationship between the US and Israel is evidently a testament to their friendship, alliance, and partnership. Their relationship arguably runs deeper into the economic partnership, military relations, shared values, cultural ties and the strategic cooperation. About 11 minutes after Israel was affirmed independent in 1948, Truman acknowledged the new State of Israel ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010). The US leaders have continued expressing their unwavering support for the Israeli state and consequently, persons from both states have continued nurturing, promoting and developing shared values and interests (Fisher, 2017). The US and Israel relation is unique and special and has further been argued to be multifaceted, heartfelt and strong.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Truman and Development of US-Israel Relationship
According to Radosh & Radosh ( 2010), a fter assuming the office as the President in 1945, Henry Truman had never deeply thought concerning the real form to be taken by a Jewish state. He made a milestone pronouncement that recognized the Israel state in 1948. Between the first days of his presidency and the formation of Israel state, his advance and strategies to notions of the Jewish state progressed considerably. Despite the fact that he successfully made one of the historic verdicts, Jewish state by no means existed in his mind. Truman’s simplistic view as a cognizant Jewish’s hero and an individual intrinsically encouraged to do what he believed to be morally right can be drawn from his political and personal background.
According to Radosh & Radosh ( 2010), Truman’s Baptism upbringing together with the Bible knowledge ultimately gave him the notion of appropriateness with regards to the Jews' deeper roots in Palestinian land and Jewish’s wish to go back. He united with his contemporaries to protest 1939 British "White Paper" that restricted the Jewish immigration and the sale of land in Palestine and then, later on, joined Christian Zionist organizations referred to as American Christian Palestine Committee. In addition to this, Truman was seriously affected by the rise to power of Adolf Hitler together with his war against the Jews. Upon returning from Potsdam Conference around 1945, his steadfastness had faded and fundamentally was focused on Jewish immigration to Palestine rather numerous issues within the area’s long-standing future and such a focus grew when he got details on dreadful circumstances that Jewish survivors were going through in that camps in Europe.
Truman’s mounting uncertainty related to statehood became manifested in his comments to the leader of Zionist, Weizmann in 1945. He proposed to Weizmann that rather than focusing on the state of Israel, he ought to establish a state of Palestine that was founded on the pluralistic model as is the case in the US where the Christians, Jews, and Muslims could live peacefully ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010). Early 1946, Truman went ahead to endorse proposals of Anglo-American Committee, that strongly sustained Jewish immigration, however, rejected the notion of Jewish- or Palestinian-subjugated states.
Radosh & Radosh ( 2010) asserts that his plans failed and he embraced partitioning of Palestine as the only solution and even lobbied delegates to ensure that the UN vote on partition in November 1947 passes. The State Department informed Truman that the state of Jews would be utterly against the International laws but was convinced otherwise by Oscar Ewing. Ewing stressed on the autonomy that Allies gave the Jews in relation to Ottoman Empire after WWI and such rights had greater legitimacy as the independence given to the Arab states. In the year May 14, 1948, Palestinian Jewish declared the state of Israel, and Truman within minutes recognized the new state.
Contemporary Events
Based on the recent reports, tension overwhelmed the US-Israeli association particularly under the administration of President Obama and Netanyahu (Fisher, 2017). It appeared disbelievingly that the long-held bilateral companionship might eventually endure their overlying terms. President Obama's speech in Washington DC at American University was argued to clearly mark the historic defining moment in the US connection with Israel.
First, the setting for the speech, for instance, was intentionally selected to closely connect the accomplishment of the president in successfully managing the nuclear pact with Iran with a comparable call by John F Kennedy for negotiation in a nuclear era about half-a-century ago. Aronson (2015) asserts that Obama’s strong-willed defense of the established accord was believed to be vital to be certain, however, that is not what seems to make the remarks by the president a breakpoint even in the US-Israel relations’ history. It can be said that long is the period when the president of the US would candidly assert without slight inconsistency that there was actually "no daylight" between the US and Israel ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017).
In one of his comments at the AU, President Obama affirmed that Israeli is by itself and apparently cut off in its official resistance to American-Iranian rapprochement. He believed that that was evidently a strong non-explosion accord ever discussed and every state globally that has remarked overtly, apart from the government of Israeli, has articulated their support. Aronson (2015) posit that undeterred, Netanyahu directed an overarched campaign that was particularly intended to incite Congress to be in opposition to the president and spoil the accord with Tehran but this was accomplished when the agreement was collectively sanctioned in the UN Security Council. Arguably, it becomes apparent that Israel’s crusade in opposition to the president mirrored a profound dissatisfaction within the Israel-US relation. However, Obama made it apparent that the pledge of the US to Israeli’s traditional pre-eminence would survive the contretemps. The strategic disengage that characterized the US-Israel disputes over Iran could not impact the wider connection between them (Fisher, 2017).
Scholars have argued that the escalating conflict between the US and Israeli should never have happened and should be managed immediately to avoid the possibility of negatively impacting the peace that has been attained in the region. Apparently, the disagreement was fashioned by individuals with some aspects of agenda. Netanyahu regime was congratulated by President Obama after he agreed to freeze the building permit on West Bank, irrespective of the notion that such a freeze failed to broaden to the Jerusalem’s regions ( Aronson, 2015).
The announcements of the new building permit clearly were in total conformity of the set agreement by Israel; however, its timing humiliated Joe Biden who at that particular moment was in Israel. Scholars have further noted that the timing of the event was not an accident and on the other hand, it was not intentionally done by Netanyahu to humiliate Biden. According to Fisher (2017), majority of the critics strongly hold onto the fact that the pronouncement was deliberately timed by the adversaries of a peace process with the aim of embarrassing Netanyahu.
By the time the Obama’s tenure was coming to an end, Netanyahu and Trump who was by then a presidential candidate had indicated to the affected groups that post-Obama period would experience instantaneous debauchery of numerous animosities. Israel and the US could eventually live a happy life once again in history. About eight months to the presidential election, Trump cinders were flaming and the foundation of the mutually beneficial alliance distorted, however, proved supple ( Aronson, 2015). Together with his acolytes, Netanyahu held onto the account that Obama’s supposed compassion for Israel was actually insincere and none of the individuals in the White House who considered themselves friends to Israel would approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran or even turn down to veto a UN Security Council resolution reproving Israeli policy.
Today, Trump seems to be pushing the relationship back towards its breaking point and such a piece emerged for the first time in the Foreign Affairs. The intense clash over Iranian’s nuclear design, the Middle East peace processes, together with the excellent rejoinder to Syria’s civil war apparently led to an intense debate-mostly fashioned with individual affront which further drove the wedge between the US and Israel ( Aronson, 2015).
Most of the Israelis from either state expressed a great faith in the management of Trump than Obama’s and had a higher prospect for a renaissance in relations with the US. Trump claimed to be Israeli’s ‘biggest friend ‘and the Israeli documented his promise to instantly move the US embassy to Jerusalem a promise that he has actually accomplished. The Trump’s Jewish supporters living in the US got highly motivated that the president would be “good for Israel.” Aronson (2015) claims that m ost critiques have asserted that there is an inverse correlation between the rhetoric of Trump and substantial advancement regarding Israel. Furthermore, they hold onto the notion that Trump’s highly advertised May trip to Israel was founded on symbolism however outstandingly short in essence. The advent of Trump has however had a massively detrimental effect on the overall level of Jewish solidarity with Israeli.
Based on a polling completed by the American Jewish Committee, more than 80% of the Jews living in the US were shown to have an adverse perspective of performance of Trump, with most of them articulating pessimistic viewpoints on all parameters ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017). Additionally, a diverse pecking order of interests has also materialized: Jews living in the US seems to be primarily focused on own security and the prospect of their alienated state, while Israel has fundamentally subordinated these issues to the perpetuation of its mutual coalition with Trump’s government as an assurance of its nationwide endurance.
The data was later widely broadcasted by Netanyahu’s communication minister, Ayoub Kara, who informed Jerusalem Post that there was the need to have a declaration on the Nazis in an appropriate fraction. The director of Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Israel branch came out openly to defend the long silence of Netanyahu. Questionably, he stated that hopping in might has shown bad conduct and an insult to the US. Aronson (2015) claims Netanyahu and president Trump could apparently benefit from a robust internal support but it is yet to be understood whether either will take such a recommendation to heart. Netanyahu is currently staffed by continuously dwindling circles of confidantes, most of whose recommendation frankly influenced his previous brinkmanship with President Obama. Israeli and the US friendship would only be sustained when the leaders develop practical expectation concerning the restrictions of their relationship ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017).
Economic and Trade Relations
The massive growth of trade policies, agreements and joint efforts in addition to the US interventions in Israeli economic system has apparently made the Israeli and the US extraordinarily interdependent. The US had provided the Israeli government with about $3.2 billion aimed at aiding during the 25 years between 1949 and 1973 ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010). From the year 1974, Israel reportedly has obtained more than $75 billion ultimately making the country one of the largest per-capita recipients ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017). Convincingly, Israeli has turned into a prosperous state with personal income competing to that of Great Britain such that the US aid to Israeli in not longer founded solely on needs.
Instead, the support is primarily linked to the entire peace processes. Potential hint to reduce the aid in most cases is strongly resisted on the ground that it might eventually endanger the confidence of Israeli and its willingness to take all risk for peace convincingly making the US aid to Israeli unique. Despite the mounting voices particularly from the conservatives in the US and Israel, direct uncertainty concerning the continuance of such aid, it has continued to be a foundation of the relationship between the US and Israel ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010).
Secondly, the US administration, in 1985 signed a free-trade agreement (FTA) with Israeli and this became the first ever FTA to be signed by the US ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017). Such an unprecedented treaty apparently was reported to have opened up the whole US market to Israeli through eliminating tariffs gradually. The foundation of the Israel and US economic relationship is primarily based on the expansion of trade and has actually enabled a sevenfold expansion of the bilateral trade. Additionally, FTA also serves as a replica for succeeding agreements with Mexico and Canada.
According to Radosh & Radosh , ( 2010), i s is the case with the rest of the trade agreements, the FTA with Israeli created significant trade disputes but at the same time has attained the intended purpose of increasing the trade volume. For instance, research has it that the whole two-way trade rose to approximately $4.7 billion in the year 1985 and reached to more than $11 billion in 1995. On the other hand, the US export to Israeli doubled within the past decades. In addition to this, the states also had signed the agricultural trade agreement in 1996. Today, Israel is considered the major trading partner of the US throughout the Middle East and prime export destination of Israel is the US.
Thirdly, the two governments established institutions aimed at stimulating the combined R&D. Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD) of 1977 were funded with about $55 million each from the two states ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017). Funds from joint Israeli-US teams helped in the commercialization and development of the ground-breaking, non-defense technologies like computer software and semiconductors. Clearly, BIRD has reportedly funded about 400 joint high-technology R&D projects and have arguably resulted into a total sale of approximately $4.5 billion and tax revenues of $200 million in the US alone consequently creating 20, 000 American jobs. BIRD currently serves as a model for various joint instructions that deal with agriculture and technology.
Truman Library & Museum (2017) asserts that i n the year 9184, a period of huge economic distress in Israeli, characterized by high unemployment rates 450% annual inflation, meager foreign reserves, and even huge foreign debt, Secretary of State Shultz proposed the development of American-Israeli Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG) that worked on the economic problems facing Israeli. Throughout the entire period, JEDG played a fundamental function in terms of formulating motivated and flourishing economic stabilization plans for Israeli which entailed shekel’s devaluation, budget cuts, and even tighter money supply control ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010). Upon adopting the strategies, Reagan approved approximately $1.5 billion emergency aid programs, ultimately saving the Israeli economy from collapsing and at the same time stimulated a recovery which helped to cut down the inflation from triple-digit to lower double-digit. The strategic plan created a strong foundation for Israel to develop the global fastest growth rates decades later.
The conversation between Israeli and the US that had begun around 1984 seemingly go on to the present, for instance, the agreement arrived at in 1996 was aimed at establishing the joint framework for evaluating ways of executing the increasing economic privatization of Israeli and expand the entire capital markets ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017). It is apparently not strange for the US to direct and advise the rest of the economies on strategies to steady the economy as was the case in Mexico; nonetheless, the Israeli instance was seemingly unique since the US Treasury, rather than the IMF or World Bank which offered the financial aid ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010).
More incredible, the disbursement together with the $3 billion in non-crisis economic and military support was argued to have aggravated no actual resistance where the Senate vote was 75-19. According to Radosh & Radosh (2009), economists have argued that Israeli I the only country that is cooperation willingly with the US on the macroeconomic policy’s development. The special feeling for Israel in this case obviously translates into a policy. Whereas the US public may dislike the foreign aid, polls have shown that majority of the Americas strongly support the military and economic aid to Israeli.
The economic relationship between the two countries has also been shown to be continuously flourishing on the municipal and state levels. A good example of this is when Netanyahu signed the momentous accord with California Governor Jerry Brown to export water technologies to Israel to aid in overcoming the Golden State’s deeper drought condition ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017). A major outcome of this accord is evident where Carlsbad desalination plant is using Israeli technologies to offer clean water to more than 300,000 Californians, consequently making around $50 million yearly for the state’s economy. When focusing on Israel and the US economic ties, Obama argued that joint venture is developing novel commodities and medical treatment while pushing innovative frontiers of science and discovery.
Political and Military Relations
The US policy primarily changed after the war of 1967 giving Israel what was believed to be a quality armed advantage over the neighboring countries. Lyndon Johnson's 1968 agreement that was intended at selling the Phantom jets to Israel apparently marked such a huge change ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017). Also, it established the US as the principal arms supplier of Israel. The sale emerged from the deliberation of Israel's requirements and home political consideration. The US officials viewed Israel as lacking the military power that would help in contributing to the NATO policy of containment, ultimately with no significant responsibility in protecting the West.
Studies have shown that for years, the Israel-military ties never existed. Since the Israel creation in 1948 to 1960s, the State Department and Pentagon officials were against the provision of the American arm to Israel due to the concern that the US weaponry to Israel could eventually aggravate the Arabs to request the Chinese and Soviets for additional supplies of armaments ultimately stimulating a Middle East arms competition ( Truman Library & Museum, 2017). Further, the unfortunate Baghdad agreement which was basically a 1955 coalition of pro-Western regimes confirmed that they were determined to organize the entire Middle East in opposition to the Soviet Union. The US policy thus was executed in 1962 during the government of Kennedy by approving the sale of HAWK anti-aircraft missile to Israel. Successive military sales prior to the Six-Day War of 1967, on the other hand, were basically aimed at avoiding any state within the region to gain a military advantage over others ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010).
According to Radosh & Radosh (2009), the perception changed around 1970 when Nixon’s administration asked Israel to come in and help in bolstering King Husayn of Jordan. It, later on, became apparent that none of the Arab states was willing to help in facilitating the Western defense throughout the Middle East; the government of Carter started the implementation of embedded form of tactical collaboration through allowing Israel to sell the armed weapons to the US and further be involved in a partial joint exercise. In addition to this, Ronald Reagan took the initiative by breaking the ground where he saw Israel as one of the most potent contributors to the cold war.
According to Radosh & Radosh , ( 2010), b efore his election, Reagan went further to state that, it is through complete approval of the fundamental role played by Israel state in the US strategic calculus that the US would construct a groundwork for upsetting Moscow's design on territory and most important resource to the country’s security and overall well-being. Jerusalem reaped greater advantages from such an approach on 1981 upon signing the Washington a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) referred to as "strategic cooperation. The MOU therefore formally recognized Israel as one of the global strategic allies of the US.
Two years later, new MOU was developed establishing two fundamental groups; first was the Joint Security Assistance Planning Group (JSAP) aimed at overseeing security support. Secondly is the Joint Political-Military Group (JPMG) which was also aimed at discussing the means of countering potential Soviet threats (Radosh & Radosh, 2009). When the Congress in 1987 placed Israel as a primary non-NATO, the Israeli industry could easily contend on an equal platform with the NATO states for contracts to produce military weapons. Studies further have shown that within the end of Reagan’s second term in office, the US had already pre-positioned pieces of equipment in Israel, habitually held cooperative training practices, started co-development of Arrow Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missile, and took an active part in the host of vital cooperative military accomplishments.
A Joint Anti-Terrorism Working Group, on the other hand, emerged around 1996 as was the case between Pentagon and Israel’s ministry of defense. Around 1997, Israel further connected to the US missile-warning satellites that offered it with the instantaneous warning of potential aggressive missiles. The US government has continued funding R&D of Israeli weapon systems and military equipment ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010).
Cultural and Academic Events
The culture of the settlers has been argued to be deeply rooted in the US consciousness especially in the Mid-West and South and Israeli currently seem to share the worldview with those of the settler’s mentality in the US. Throughout the 19th century, some of the US settlers with the help of the government colonized North America prosecuting similar pogrom against the indigenous people, who were living there. Studies have shown that the conflict’s legacy became a vital component of the US culture as it is within the Israel culture ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010). Both the North Americans and Israeli, when committed to colonialism majority of them, justified such policies where they believed that such mission was endorsed by God and the cruelty was inevitably a consequence of this.
Radosh & Radosh ( 2010) state that w ithin the US, the desire to define the US identity in relation to the conquest and colonization might eventually be changed completely, however until then. The Israel and US relationship will be entirely determined by the struggles in the US to overturn dual ideologies of the settlers and an ‘open door’ with more progressive ones founded on equality, inclusivity and human rights. As such perspectives become significantly ascended in the US; Israel would find themselves not able to appeal to the US public for the unqualified supports. Radosh & Radosh (2009) posit that the Israeli would be forced to adapt to the changing reality or even find itself socially, economical and socially isolated ultimately being unable to maintain their military power. The Israeli and Americans have numerous standing arrangements at both the local and state levels. For instance, the governors regularly accompany some of their delegations especially in the field of cultural affairs and education to Israel.
Research has further shown that the Israeli intellectual are exceptionally accustomed to the life of the mind in the US. Radosh & Radosh ( 2010) note that majority of Israel have emerged as chief authors throughout the US compared to all their corresponding persons from the rest of the non-English-language countries and they were comprised of the following great figures: Abba Eban, David Grossman, and even Amos Oz. In the rest of the field, for instance, the Middle East studies and the Biblical studies, Israeli scholars obviously enjoy the huge role compared to various foreign states countrywide although they propel various research agendas throughout the US. Most universities such as the Georgetown, a Jesuit institution, in cases have been reported to have regular slots for all visiting Israeli scholar and this is clearly unique (Radosh & Radosh, 2009).
Numerous US Colleges have further been shown to have learners and faculty-exchange program with several institutions in Israel, in addition to other joint degree programs. There are so many American students in Israeli to an extent that the entire university division there exists to specifically service numerous US learners, for instance, Rothberg School for Overseas Students at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Furthermore, the organization previously referred to as UNCF manages the UNCF/Israel Exchange Program in collaboration with Israel organizations to send some of the black American learners to Israel for their summer to work in the kibbutz and another month teaching English to disadvantaged Israelis ( Radosh & Radosh , 2010).
Both the US and Israeli further developed the Binational Science Foundation (BSF) around 1972 aimed at promoting innovation and research collaboration between scientists between the two states, thus creating the foundation for the massive of nonstrategic association (Radosh & Radosh, 2009). The BSF boasted of approximately $100 million endowments and the report has shown that they have currently awarded about 2,000 grants, including around 2,000 scientists from roughly 300 American research organizations.
Conclusion
The above examples are among the visible connections between Israeli and the US but there are other cases, for instance, most Israeli have close relatives living in the US than any other country ultimately making the US the most familiar place for the Israelites. Arguably, the economic ties between the US and Israel seem to be much stronger than before and this is evident in the present during these turbulent times. The strong economic relationship is fundamentally founded on the two state’s mutual values, joint proclivities for entrepreneurship, inventiveness, and projects, in addition to the emerging burly innovation ecosystem that is personified by tech hubs such as the Silicon Valley. Based on the discussion above, it is apparent that the US will continue being Israel’s influential trading and economic trading partner for many years. It is true that Israel is one of the US’s oldest free trade agreement part which runs for more than 30 years. The trade between the two states has been shown to stand at around $40 billion yearly and this has been shown to have tripled.
Evidently, more than 1,000 Israeli corporations are actively engaged in the US which ultimately creates approximately 100,000 American jobs. Also, Israeli is currently considered the third most represented state on NASDAQ behind US and China. “The Free Trade Area Agreement signed by Reagan signified the two nations’ deeper interest and collective values and ambitions for a prospective future. Therefore, all these seemingly underscore the significance of Israel to the US as a friend, trading associate and an ally. The other fundamental area of collaboration between the US and Israeli has been shown to be in the field of R&D.
There exist three main joint between Israel and the US R&D foundations and the largest is the BIRD. The acquisition of Israel technology firms by the US interested in latest information within a wider field also has made significant headlines, for example, Apple’s acquisition of chipmaker Annobit. The US and Israeli economies apparently seem to share a universal commitment to the free market, international trade liberation support, multilateral trading system, and even competitiveness. Currently, there are numerous ongoing dialogues between Israel and the US governments to further improve their economic relationships and make sure that they achieved a continuous prosperous partnership.
References
Aronson, G., (2015). A new era in US-Israel relationship? Retrieved from:
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/08/era-israel-relationship- 150808105744195.html
Fisher, M., (2017). The Jerusalem Issue, Explained. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/world/middleeast/jerusalem-trump- capital.html
Radosh , A., & Radosh , R., (2010). The Origins of the U.S.-Israeli Relationship: Truman and the Jewish State . Retrieved from: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy- analysis/view/the-origins-of-the-u.s.-israeli-relationship-truman-and-the-jewish- state
Radosh, A., & Radosh, R. (2009). A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel . New York: Harper. Truman Library & Museum (2017). Recognition of the State of Israel. Retrieved from: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/index.ph p ?action=bg
