Israel, America, and the War on Terror

More significant has been the assistance Israel has afforded the United States in gathering the intelligence and security expertise needed to prevent further attacks in the United States, and to prosecute its war in Afghanistan. In the weeks following the attacks, high-level Israeli delegations aimed at helping America plan its strategy and tactics for Afghanistan began arriving in Washington. According to a report in Ha’aretz of October 14, the Americans were particularly interested in Israel’s experience in fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Moreover, even though America has the broadest and most technologically advanced information-gathering network in the world, the CIA has been taking full advantage of Israel’s network of operatives who speak Arabic and Farsi, and who can, for example, administer polygraph tests in those languages. According to the political commentator Zev Chafets, in an article appearing in Newsday, “for all practical purposes, Israel’s intelligence establishment is now functioning as a branch of the U.S. war effort”—a fact that the Israeli press has proudly reported as well.

But it is not only in the areas of military tactics and intelligence that Americans are beginning to see Israel as a source for guidance. In New York City, for example, family service organizations have begun seeking out the help of Israeli counselors in dealing with the families of victims of the attack there. On the delicate question of how to balance civil rights and due process with the unique needs of an effective fight against terror, The Wall Street Journal ran an article proposing that America adopt Israel’s policy of allowing unusual interrogation procedures in “ticking time-bomb” cases, when timely information extracted from a caught terrorist could potentially save the lives of many innocents. And when the Atlantic Monthly sought to help Americans grapple with life under the threat of terror, it ran an essay in its November issue showcasing Israel as the country “where terrorism has been a fact of ordinary life for decades—and where ordinary life defeats terrorism.”It was this sense of respect that led Chris Matthews, host of msnbc’s political talk show Hardball, to assert in late September that Americans would now have to view themselves much as Israel sees itself: As a moral nation, dedicated to protecting its citizens without initiating a “blood war” in which a great many civilians would be killed—and which seeks peace as the final outcome. As Matthews put it, “We need to feel American, think Israeli.”

Of course, there is nothing new in a general sense of support and approval for Israel from the citizens and government of the United States. But since September 11, this sense of fraternity has taken on a new urgency, as America has suddenly found itself in a global conflict in which Israel is one of its closest and most experienced allies. This is assuredly a critical moment in the history of American relations with the Jewish state, and it contains the possibility of forging a deeper and more lasting alliance between the two states. For this to happen, however, it is crucial that Israelis understand the unique responsibility which faces their country—one which may have an impact not only on the fate of their own struggle against terror, but also on Israel’s position in the emerging international order.

The first imperative facing Israel is to recognize that support for Israel is deeply rooted in the logic of America’s war, and is likely to continue being so, regardless of temporary shifts in circumstances or policy. American respect for Israel is based not on Israel’s willingness to give in to the demands of Washington, but on very much the opposite: On Israel’s independence of mind, its experience and innovativeness in the struggle against terror, and its determination to fight terror as a moral cause—even in the face of sustained international pressure. Although short-term concerns cannot always be ignored, Israel’s leaders need to understand that by fighting with resolve against terrorism, they do not threaten the long-term health of their relationship with their American ally. If Israeli statesmen make the case that the threat they are facing is exacting an intolerable cost in lives and in the damage it is doing to Israel’s democratic liberties, they may well succeed in strengthening the sense that America and Israel are engaged in the same war, against the same enemy, and for the same reasons.

Moreover, Israel must act not only in defense of its own interests, but also out of a sense that its behavior may serve as a model for American action, and perhaps for the West as a whole. Israel should therefore pursue its war on terror with the same moral clarity that it asks of its allies. As the United States organizes itself for a prolonged struggle against terror, the actions of the Jewish state will continue to be seen by a great many Americans as an example of how such a war ought to be fought. Israel must therefore undertake a consistent policy of stiff retribution and deterrence while avoiding undue loss of life. Such a policy means not distinguishing between “good” and “bad” terrorists. It means steadfastly refusing to recognize terrorists or their sponsors—including neighboring states that have not yet come to understand that terror sponsorship carries a price. It means making sure that terror never pays off in political gain. And it means consistent, effective punishment for terrorist activity.

Finally, Israelis should think carefully about the implications that the new alignment may hold for their country’s own long-range foreign policy aims. Even prior to Israel’s founding, there has been a debate as to where the Jewish state ought to see itself fitting into the international strategic order. Since the days of the pre-state Peace Association (“Brit Shalom”), there have been Israelis who have argued that the country’s political interests should be seen as being united with those of the Arab world. Others have advocated deepening ties with Europe, including the eventual incorporation of Israel into the emerging European Union. Both of these visions have a utopian and universalist air about them, in that they do not seem to reflect any parallel interest on the part of the nations with which Israel would be allied, and would necessitate Israel’s abandonment of certain elements of its hard-won sovereignty, which few Israelis would knowingly accept.

But there is a third vision, one that is at once grounded in political reality and more attuned to the actual ideals that characterize the Jewish state: A strengthened membership in the community of Western nations under the leadership of the United States. This community is united not by a desire for political unification, but by a belief in the same democratic freedoms that Israel holds dear, while respecting the sovereignty and independence of nations to chart their course according to their own vision. For these states, terror and tyranny must be fought as a moral cause, not coddled. It is in this community that the Jewish state’s moral aspirations have consistently found their greatest adherents, and that Israel’s struggle for survival and achievement have consistently won the greatest sympathy. And it is only here that Israel may find its greatest freedom to explore and develop its own unique character as a Jewish state, while playing a significant role in world affairs as a moral actor.

Israel’s position in the new alignment of nations depends on its continuing ability to act as a model for emulation, while pursuing its own independent understanding of right and wrong. Israel is, unfortunately, a country more experienced than any other in fighting terror. This record includes remarkable successes, and these in turn mean that Israel has a unique part to play in the war on terror. But we will succeed in playing it only if we understand the profound shifts that have taken place since September 11, recognize the role that history has given us, and maintain our confidence in the rightness of our cause.

David Hazony, for the Editors

January 1, 2002

PDF Format

previous (page 3 of 3 - view all)