Obama Loves Israel

President Barack Obama. Picture from Salon.

Ok maybe love is a little strong but President Barack Hussein Obama has supported the State of Israel to a greater extent than many, if not all, of his predecessors.

Since the launch of the latest Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip, social media has been ablaze with messages of support, frustration and personal opinions. One opinion that has been prevalent among the pro-Israel factions is the lack of support President Obama and his administration, specifically Secretary of State John Kerry, has given to the Israeli side.

Of course most of these posts are just echoing accusations made by right wing pundits and Republican Party officials looking to score political points in an election year, but the unfortunate truth is that this perception is a pervasive mentality predating the current conflict in the Levant.

Questions over Obama’s support for the Jewish state were first raised during the 2008 election when his Muslim sounding middle name, Hussein, sparked unfounded allegations of the then Senator’s sympathies. Some inferred that a Muslim sympathizing President would align more with the Muslim Palestinians than the Jewish Israelis. After his election Obama’s comment in 2011, stating that the 1949 Armistice Line should be the starting point for any peace discussion, sparked widespread accusations that the President was less than supportive of Israel as the comment was interpreted as an affront to the State of Israel. More recently Secretary Kerry has come under harsh criticism, first for a comment earlier this year warning that Israel risked becoming an apartheid state, and his failed attempts at securing a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas just this month. In both cases the Secretary of State was called everything from a racist to a terrorist, and the vitriol was then imputed onto Obama.  

But the question is whether or not the vilification of President Obama and his administration’s position on Israel is justified?

Since the late 1960s the United States has been Israel’s staunchest ally and supporter. From financial aid and military agreements to trade and politics, the U.S. and Israel have forged a special relationship adopted, supported, and enhanced by every American President since Richard Nixon. Trying to gauge the level of support each President in that time frame has given to Israel is like a 4^th grade pissing contest. All the Presidents have supported Israel in their own way, and all have adopted policies and statements which can be perceived as contrary to Israel's interests.

Statements by themselves are a horrible metric for gauging a politician's support. As anyone who follows politics can tell you what a politician says and what a politician does are rarely analogous. Less cynically, talk is cheap and it's the actions of an individual which show that person's true colors.

Judging a President's support by analyzing American financial aid to Israel during their tenure isn't definitive since Congress sets the federal budget, and the flow of aid has been relatively static since 1978. However, it does serve as a starting point for the discussion. Since 1987 Israel has received roughly $3 billion per annum for economic and military assistance from the United States, not including supplemental aid packages and joint military ventures. This number has been relatively stable since 1978 with the exception of the 2003 deduction, when a Republican controlled congress voted for, and the Bush Administration approved, a reduction in American aid to Israel by 0.65%. The 2003 reduction in aid was first time American aid to Israel had ever been reduced.

In addition to the regular economic and military assistance, Israel has received five separate aid packages. The first aid package came during the Carter administration when Israel received $3 billion ($2.2 billion of which was a high interest loan, with the remaining $800 million unconditional) to compensate the cost of relocating its military bases from the Sinai peninsula to the Negev as a condition of the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty. The second aid package was a $1.5 billion economic emergency package used to stabilize the Israeli economy during a period of extremely high inflation during the Reagan Administration. During the Clinton Administration, Israel received $100 million to aid its counter terrorism operations after the end of the First Intifada. As compensation for the security preparations associated with the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Israel received its fourth aid package worth $10 billion. However, the Bush Administration's aid package included $9 billion in loans and $1 billion in direct assistance which was subject to a reduction equal to the amount that the Israeli government spends on settlements in the Palestinian territories. It also mandated that the money could only be spent within the pre-1967 Israeli borders. The final and most recent package were two direct payments requested by the Obama Administration of $250 million and $680 million for the development and production of the Iron Dome missile defense system. Neither aid grant included a loan or condition.

 Israel also receives U.S. funding for joint development of missile defense systems including David's Sling and Arrows 1 through 3. American payment for these projects are driven by the Pentagon and are usually set by the Executive branch and not Congress. The total American appropriation for all the projects have been the following (in the millions of dollars): 2006 - $132; 2007 - $137; 2008 - $155; 2009 - $177; 2010 - $202; 2011 - $166; and 2012 - $235. The reduction in 2011 was attributable to the drawdown in Arrow 2 spending as the project's development phase ended. American spending for joint missile defense development increased in 2009 when President Obama took office, and has nearly doubled since the heydays of the Bush Administration.

American funding for the Iron Dome system, which has been credited with saving hundreds if not thousands of Israeli lives during this most recent conflict, serves as the largest non-loan and unconditional financial package to Israel since the Reagan Administration's aid package in 1985. Although the Bush administration's package had a higher initial value, the majority of the which were loans which Israel must pay back with high interest rates and the loans were subject to reductions and conditions, the package itself was precipitated by the security concerns resulting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In addition American funding for joint-development projects have steadily increased under the Obama Administration. Financially, Israel has benefitted greatly during the Obama Administration.

But as was stated before using financial aid as a metric to determine support is a tricky endeavor. Judging policies and actions of American presidents are by and far a more accurate metric. American policy regarding Israel has radically changed since the Egyptian peace agreement, the end of the Cold War, and the beginning of the Second Intifada. Since the beginning of the Second Intifada American responses to two Israeli operations warrant comparison.

At the height of the Second Intifada, Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield and moved its military into the large Palestinian cities in the West Bank. President Bush responded by demanding, then Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon cease the operation and move the military out of the West Bank cities. Sharon ignored the directive and continued the Israeli Defense Force's (IDF) counter-terrorism operation in the territory.

By comparison President Obama has given no such directive to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during Operations Cast Lead or Protective Edge. Although the President and members of his staff and the State Department have issued statements proclaiming their worry over the death and destruction being produced by the operations, their statements have stopped short of condemnation or calls for the IDF to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. In fact, the administration has continuously issued statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself from terrorism and rocket attacks, with the strongest worded statements opposing the operation coming only after the occurrence of Israeli artillery strikes on UN operated schools serving as refugee shelters.

A more definitive and reliable metric to judge an American president's pro-Israel credentials is through an analysis of United Nations Security Council votes. Whereas the UN General Assembly is composed of all UN member states, the UN Security Council is composed of the five permanent members and ten rotating non-permanent members and has the power to pass legally binding resolutions as opposed to the General Assembly. Due to the binding nature of Security Council resolutions each of the five permanent members has the power to unilaterally veto any resolution.

In fact, the United States has used its veto power on the security council 82 times, the most after the former Soviet Union (not including Russia's veto power as the successor state to the USSR), and has exercised that power more times than any other member since 1966, one year before the Six-Day War in 1967. The vast majority of the time the United States has exercised its veto power has been to block resolutions denouncing Israel or Israeli action. It is safe to then assume that any resolution that is ratified by the Security Council is done so with the United States' consent.

Under the U.S. Constitution the executive is vested with the power to conduct the nation's foreign relations (with the noted exception in Article 2 requiring the president to seek the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate). America's Security Council veto is under the complete autonomy and direction of the President. Therefore an analysis of the United States voting record on the Security Council represents the most reliable metric to judge an administration's position on Israel as it represents an affirmative action with relative political autonomy.

Since the UN partition plan in 1947 establishing the Jewish state, there have been over 200 Security Council resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine. The following is a breakdown of the number of UN Security Council resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine passed during each presidential administration since Israel's declaration of independence:

Truman (1945-1953) - 18
Eisenhower (1953-1961) - 10
Kennedy (1961-1963) - 2
Johnson  (1963-1969) - 16
Nixon (1969-1974) - 22
Ford (1974-1977) - 12
Carter (1977-1981) - 22
Reagan (1981-1989) - 58
George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) - 21
Clinton (1993-2001) - 28
George W. Bush (2001-2009) - 9
Obama (2009- )- 0

As the list above shows since the establishment of the state of Israel every Presidential administration has allowed Security Council resolutions, mostly condemning Israel, to pass with the exception of three: Kennedy, George W. Bush and Obama. Whereas Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson had to deal with large scale conflicts in the Levant (Israeli War of Independence, Suez Crisis, and the Six Day War respectively), the region was relatively quiet during Kennedy's time in office. On top of that, Kennedy had the shortest tenure in office than any of the other men on the list other than Gerald Ford.

George W. Bush and Barack Obama's commitment to using the United States' veto power far exceeded their predecessors. An explanation for the relatively low amount of resolutions passed during the Bush and Obama administration comes from the adoption of the Negroponte Doctrine, named after the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte. The doctrine dictated that the US would exercise its veto power on any resolution brought before the security council condemning Israel without also condemning terrorist groups. Since the adoption of the doctrine in 2002, the number of UN resolutions condemning Israel dropped dramatically. In addition, the text of the resolutions also became softer and focused less on condemnation. Even so, Resolution 1435 was passed after the adoption of the Negroponte Doctrine and demanded that Israel withdraw its forces in and around Ramallah for an operation during the height of the Second Intifada.

Since taking office not a single Security Council resolution regarding Israel has been adopted during Obama's tenure as commander-in-chief. Whether or not this was a result of an adoption and expansion of the Negroponte Doctrine one thing is clear: Obama has taken a firm stance on international condemnation of Israel in the Untied Nations. Such a position marks an extreme departure from the traditional American policy towards Israel. Even in situations where Israel may be deserving of criticism and condemnation, under the Obama administration there have been none.

Of particular note was the passage of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 67/19 in 2012. The Resolution upgraded Palestine to non-member observer state status from observer entity. GA Resolution 67/19 was seen as a major step towards legitimizing Palestine as an independent state as the UN designated the actor as a non-member state, even though the Palestinian Liberation Organization (the recognized government of Palestine by the UN) exercises little to no sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Since the resolution was introduced in the General Assembly and not the Security Council, the United States could not exercise its veto power to defeat the resolution. In the face of overwhelming support, the United States along with eight other nations including Israel, Canada, Panama, the Czech Republic and several small Oceanic states, voted to oppose the resolution. While the vast majority of Israel's traditional allies: developed Western nations, either voted in the affirmative (France) or in abstention (the United Kingdom). The United States stayed steadfast in its support at the risk of further alienating its allies in the Middle East.

So why then do people believe that President Obama is unsupportive of Israel? One answer could be attributed to the vehement hatred that some possess towards Obama. Some have an unalterable conceptual idea in their mind not subject to reason or fact that Obama hates Israel. It is similar to the birth certificate movement that permeated through some of the more radical elements of conservative America.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Left) and President Barack Obama
(Right). Picture from the Atlantic.

A more reasonable and likely answer can be found in the strained relationship between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The two leaders have constantly found themselves on opposing political sides on issues mostly dealing with Iran and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Educated in the United States, Netanyahu has been more active in the American political scene and media than past Israeli prime ministers. Due to his relatively high exposure in American society, Netanyahu's disagreements with the White House tend to get more attention than past disparities.

The misguided concept that disagreeing with a country's political leader shows a lack of support for that country is a notion that runs into logical problems when applied to American politics. If this theory were to hold true than most Democrats would have been traitors during the Bush administration, and most Republicans traitors since Obama took office. Just because someone disagrees with a government's policy or actions doesn't mean that person lacks support for that government's state. In fact that idea runs afoul to not only the basic concepts of democratic governance and society, but also of American ideals and freedoms.

Obama may not love Israel, but he has most certainly supported it.