Ed. by R.O. Freedman. Colorado: Westview Press, 2012. 304 p.*

The history of the American-Israeli alliance dates back more than six decades, but the interest of the scientific community in this tandem, the stages of its development and the mechanisms of interaction still does not fade. There are a number of reasons for this. On the one hand, the US-Israel alliance remains a key factor influencing the development of the situation in the Middle East. U.S. support reduces Israel's vulnerability to a hostile environment, providing military and political cover for Israel and helping to strengthen its position as one of the regional centers of power. On the other hand, many decisions that are strategically important for US Middle East policy are made in Washington with Israel's interests in mind, and not a single US presidential election is held without playing the "Israeli card". At the same time, some experts point out that close cooperation with Israel is one of the reasons for the increase in anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab world1.

The beginning of the twenty-first century opened a new chapter in the study of the American-Israeli alliance, its history, and various spheres of interaction, including the Middle East settlement. One of the most striking events was the publication of the book "The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy" by J. Mearsheimer and S. Walt (2007). This work, which argues that close cooperation with Israel is a threat to the national interests of the United States, caused a wide response both in the United States and around the world.

The desire to challenge the conclusions of J. Mearsheimer and S. Walt predetermined the activation of representatives of the "traditionalist" wing in historiography, who positively assess the American-Israeli dialogue and emphasize the success of this partnership in all areas, starting with trade and ending with education. Among them, a peer-reviewed collective monograph attracts interest.

Executive Editor of the peer-reviewed publication P. O. Friedman, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University. Peggy Meyerhoff Pearlstone (Baltimore Hebrew University) in Baltimore, has been studying the Middle East for more than 40 years. He was a consultant to the US State Department and the CIA, president of the Association for Israel Studies, commentator for VOA and the BBC, author of numerous articles and books not only on Israel and the Middle East, but also on Soviet foreign policy, as well as dozens of interviews with Israeli journalists. and Palestinian officials such as Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat, Tzipi Livni, Mahmoud Abbas, and many others. A chapter of the monograph written by him is devoted to studying the role of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In the preface to the peer-reviewed monograph, P. O. Friedman defines the goal of the collective monograph and the previous conference at Johns Hopkins University, which prompted him to write this book, as " to gain a better understanding of the nature of American-Israeli relations "(p. IX). This goal requires an excursion into the history of American-Israeli relations and its multi-vector study, which was demonstrated by P. O. Friedman and his colleagues.

An indisputable advantage of this work is the wide range of topics studied, which allows you to open it from any interesting article. However, the scope of the review does not allow us to consider all the chapters of the book, and therefore I will focus only on the most interesting and controversial points for me.

* Israel and the United States: six decades of U.S.-Israeli relations / Edited by P. O. Friedman. Colorado: Eastview Press, 2012. 304 p.

¹ The latest major debate in the academic community about the causes of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world was between Mark Lynch, a professor of political science at George Washington University, and Amani Jamal, a professor of political science at Princeton University, in Foreign Affairs (May / June 2013). In general, support for Israel is not a fundamental reason for anti-Americanism among Arabs; the decisive factor was the American military campaigns in the BSV and support for authoritarian regimes.

In his first article, P. O. Friedman briefly outlines the main milestones in the two-state relationship from 1948 to 2000. The author highlights the Clinton administration and its relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. Like many other political scientists, the researcher mentions the personal hostility between Clinton and Netanyahu: "Fortunately for Clinton, Netanyahu lost the election" (p. 11). When reading the article, you can catch the author's sympathy for the Middle East policy of U. The Clinton campaign. P. O. Friedman follows the same line in his second article, where he explains the misunderstanding between B. Obama and B. Netanyahu by the latter's clash with the previous American president from the Democratic Party.

According to P. O. Friedman, B. Obama is the best American president for Israel at the moment [Freedman, 2013]. The scientist argues that, first of all, despite the economic crisis in the United States, Barack Obama not only did not withdraw financial support for Israel and its Iron Dome missile defense system, but also increased American military assistance to the Jewish state and continued to support it at the diplomatic level: all anti-Israel resolutions were blocked in the United States. The UN. Both leaders (Obama and Netanyahu) have different views of the global political scene, in particular the Middle East region. Following different Middle East priorities, they use different methods of resolving problems, for example, this concerns the Iranian nuclear program.

This topic was discussed by S. R. David in the article " Apocalypse now? The Iranian Nuclear Threat to Israel "(Johns Hopkins University). The researcher reminds the reader that the leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, was initially categorically opposed to any nuclear installations, calling them anti-Islamic, and only the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) forced him to change his mind. The author of the article carefully studied the Iranian nuclear program and concluded that Iran has already passed the most difficult process: it has created 3% of pure uranium. Then it will be easy to bring these 3% to 90%. This partly explains the desire of the Israeli authorities to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons "in any way".

S. R. David mentions such scientists as K. Walz, who claim that a nuclear conflict will be unacceptable, since its nature is suicidal from the very beginning. However, the presence of nuclear weapons is in some sense a guarantee of peace and stability, as it was in the era of bipolarity. In the event of a nuclear strike, there will be no winner. The discussion about the rationality of states that sought nuclear weapons is more relevant than ever. S. R. David draws parallels with the Cold War, emphasizing that the leaders of the United States and the USSR were rational, unlike those who are now in power in Iran. Moreover, relations between Israel and Iran are now much worse than between the two superpowers in the last century. Traditional anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli (and anti-American) speeches of Iran's top officials, M. Ahmadinejad's personal ties with the Basiji (an Iranian paramilitary group that, according to the SR. David, a fanatic who sent children and adult men with the "keys to paradise" to minefields in Iraq), Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and the 1994 attacks on the Israeli embassy in Argentina and a Jewish community center. With the "Iranian trail" behind them, all this only further convinces Israeli leaders of the irrationality of the regime and the need for decisive action on the part of Israel.

Since the United States will not launch a strike on Iran, Israel may launch it first. CF. David writes about the possibility of a strike and its technical complexity. To eliminate the Iranian nuclear reactor, the Israeli air force must cross several air zones (Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia), but even if Israel overcomes these spaces, it is not certain that it will be able to destroy all the "nuclear zones" - too large a spread of targets for one strike. No one can say what the amount of damage will be. It follows that we must accept a nuclear Iran, just as America once accepted " fanatical Maoist China and North Korea." In conclusion, the author paraphrased W. Churchill: "The best thing that Israel can expect now is to choose the worst option of all."

Meanwhile, the history of cooperation between the United States and Israel in the military sphere is not so transparent, according to CA. Cohen (Bar-Ilan Stewart University, Israel), author of "Light and Shadow in U.S.-Israeli Military Relations." The first major sale of the American military anti-aircraft complex "Hawk" was made only during the presidency of J. R. R. Tolkien. Kennedy. Subsequently, Israel received other types of weapons. It is important that the Israel Defense Forces was created on a mixed American and British model, but the influence of the Americans on the Israeli army, according to C. A. Cohen, was detrimental. After the Second Lebanon War, the E. Vinogradov Commission

published a report that described the mistakes of the Israeli military leadership during the fighting. The reason lies in too close military contact at all levels between the United States and Israel. Thus, the Israeli military elite, according to S. A. Cohen, has lost the ability to think independently and pursue an independent military strategy.

D. Makovsky (Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Studies) analyzes the history of the formation of American-Israeli cooperation and the role of the United States in the Arab-Israeli conflict (1945-2000). He gives a brief digression into the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and describes the reaction of the White House to it, highlighting the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Lyndon Johnson. Other US administrations remain "behind the scenes". Makowski focuses on the relationship between the US authorities and Arab countries against the background of Arab-Israeli contradictions. In his opinion, the strengthening of US-Israeli ties has contributed to regional stability. For the same reason, there has not been a major regional war against Israel since 1973.

The political scientist challenges the position of J. Mearsheimer and S. Walt, presented in their book, that the United States does not follow its own interests, but Israeli ones, mainly because of the pressure of Israeli lobbyists in Washington, and also criticizes their theory that it is possible to achieve relative advantages without striving for absolute gain by one of the parties. Makowski does not believe that the idea that "one step towards the Israelis is equal to one step away from the Arabs" is correct. The author also finds ambiguous the opinion about the antipathy of Arabs and Muslims to the United States because of their support for Israel. The situation is much more complicated: for example, radical forces in Iran are enemies not only of the US-Israeli tandem, but also of some Arab states. As the author notes, few people in the region need a strong Iran, just as few people need a weak Israel. Makovsky believes that the United States can be both an ally of Israel and Arab countries.

After reading the article by D. Makovsky, the question arises: is it possible in practice for Americans and Arabs to live happily together? In this situation, you can hardly expect open sympathy. But in order not to be left out of the "Middle East liner", the Americans need to build a dialogue with the "Arab street".

After a brief historical review, the third article by P. O. Friedman, which provides a comparative analysis of the policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, will help us return to the present day. George W. Bush, according to the political scientist, is a conservative with a black-and-white understanding of terrorism, his vision of the world absolutely coincided with the approach of conservatives in power in Israel. However, with the arrival of Barack Obama, the situation has changed, he is a liberal, while Netanyahu is a conservative. One of the distinguishing features of Barack Obama's BSV policy, according to experts, was a departure from the democratization carried out by George W. Bush, but P. O. Friedman states the opposite: "It seemed that by February 2011 the United States had returned to the old policy of George W. Bush. Bush Jr. - democratization". There were differences and similarities in the policies of both administrations towards the BSV in general and Israel in particular.

Among similar features, P. O. Friedman highlights the interest of American presidents in the issue of Israel's security. Under J. R. R. Tolkien George W. Bush signed a Memorandum of Understanding providing Israel with $ 30 billion in support. within 10 years, Barack Obama not only supported the Memorandum, but also provided $ 250 million for the development of Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. Both presidents opposed the removal of nuclear reactors by American forces and were wary of the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran. The two administrations are also similar in their support for Israel as a Jewish State.

P. O. Friedman highlights a number of differences in the policies of the two administrations. For example, no US administration has openly supported the construction of Jewish settlements, but Bush Jr. was more lenient, unlike B. Obama, who is strongly opposed to settlement activity. George W. Bush sought to isolate Iran and Syria. B. Obama initially tried to improve relations with these countries. He believed that the warming of relations with Syria would affect both the Iraqi front (for example, the penetration of anti-American forces into Iraq would stop) and the Syria-Hamas-Hezbollah triangle (Syria's support for the two organizations was expected to decrease). However, since mid-2011, the American president has openly criticized the actions of the Syrian government.

It is indisputable that the White House, pursuing a particular foreign policy course, relies on the support of the American society. Israeli political scientist A. Kavari (Herzl Interdisciplinary Center) in his article, using statistical data, shows how American public opinion about Israel has changed. The researcher emphasizes that the majority of Americans support Israel, but the percentage ratio is not static. The author notes changes in the political orientation of those who support Israel. Pro-Republican Americans are more friendly to Israel than pro-democratic Americans. Similar changes in public opinion began to manifest themselves in the 1990s and are still noticeable today. This is due to the fact that democratic leaders have become more critical of Israel. The majority of pro-Israel lobbyists are Republicans.

The Middle East vector remains key to American foreign policy, but when studying this region and the American-Israeli alliance, it is impossible not to mention the Israeli lobby and its role in shaping US Middle East policy. D. Wexman (Associate Professor of Political Science at Baruch College and the Center for Advanced Research Training at the University of New York) briefly outlined He also noted the history of the emergence of pro-Israel forces, highlighting the most influential ones (AIPAC ² and the Conference of Presidents of Most American Jewish Organizations), but, according to his forecasts, the influence of lobbyists will decrease in the future. The pro-Israel lobby is not united: there are left, right, and centrist wings. Wexman included AIPAC in the list of centrists, which is controversial). Some of them, by their political nature, are opponents. The newly formed J Street Lobby opposes AIPAC on key issues: Israel's policy in the occupied territories and the Middle East settlement. The weakening will be facilitated by the fact that young American Jews are not so committed to Israel, which can cause significant damage to pro-Israel forces, especially on the right.

In the last decade, a new movement and new organizations have emerged in the United States that call themselves pro-Israel, but actively criticize Israeli policies. Some of them participate in the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy AIPAC social and political movements. M. Rosenblum (Director of the Center for Israeli Studies, the Michael Harrington Center, and the Center for Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Understanding, and a member of Americans for Peace Now) And D. Fleshler (a member of Americans for Peace Now) studied the origins, growth, and basic principles of the American Jewish Peace Camp, which includes the Breira Organization, Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, and J Street.

In summary, the book, edited by P. O. Friedman, covers all the key aspects of the US-Israel relationship. However, this material will not be enough for those who are interested in a step-by-step history of US-Israeli relations. P. O. Friedman and his colleagues focus on the current state of bilateral relations.

The peer-reviewed book will become a reference book for researchers of US-Israeli relations, American foreign policy, Israeli lobbying, and Middle East settlement.

list of literature

Frccdman R.O. Is Obama Really Throwing Israel under Bus? // The Baltimore Sun [online: 28.03.20131.

http://articlcs.baltimorc sun.com/2012-09-10/ncws/bs-ed-obama-isracl20120910_1_icon-domc-prcsidcnt-obama-mahmound-abbas-palcstinian-authority

Mearschcimcr J., Wolt S. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. N.Y.: Farrar, Strous and Giroux, 2007.

² American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Permanent link to this publication: