RUTHFULLY YOURS

Recently, the Jerusalem-based online newspaper, “The Times of Israel,” ran an interview under the headline, “When they become PM, they realize how utterly dependent Israel is on the US.” The headline was a quote from the interview subject, Eitan Haber, a former aide to late-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Haber was explaining why, in his view, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who criticized Rabin outside of power, follows a different path now that he’s in power. When you sit in the prime minister’s chair, only then do you understand, Haber said, that Israel depends on America “for absolutely everything — in the realms of diplomacy, security, even economically … Slowly your tone changes.”

Shmuel Katz would have rolled his eyes at Haber’s remarks, though he wouldn’t have been surprised at the source — a man who, in the same interview, makes the mind-boggling assertion that Israel has benefited immensely from the Oslo Accords.

Shmuel wrote often about the U.S.-Israel relationship, poking holes at the false characterization of the relationship by those who thought like Haber. As Shmuel wrote in a 1988 pamphlet published by Americans for A Safe Israel:

“What truth is there in the claim that Israel is completely dependent on the United States? It is, even on its face, absurd. If Israel is, as it is often described, an ally or even ‘our most [or only] dependable ally,’ this means ineluctably that between the United States and Israel there subsists a condition of interdependence manifest no less — and in some senses more — than in the relationship between the United States and Western Europe.”

A state of mutual interdependence is how Shmuel liked to describe the relationship. Shmuel writes in the same article:

“A substantial body of information published in recent years, in professional and political journals, through investigative reporting and in congressional hearings in both houses, bears testimony to the weight and the variety of the Israeli contribution to Western security.”

Shmuel was referring then to the work of Professor Steven Spiegel of the University of California who analyzed U.S.-Israel relations in the 1980s and concluded that Israel gave more than full value for any money received from America.

Judging from a speech by Israeli Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger on February 17, 2013, Israel’s contribution to the relationship may have actually grown. Ettinger reports that the intelligence committees of both the House and Senate tell him that the scope of Israeli intelligence “on a daily basis exceeds the scope of intelligence reports received from all NATO countries combined.”

In the 1980s, Israel was still an economic basket case. Today, it’s a technological powerhouse. Even the Obama administration admits Israel’s contribution. In July, 2010, Andrew J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, said in a speech at the Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy, that, “Israeli-origin equipment deployed on Iraqi and Afghan battlefields are protecting American troops every day.” He listed armor-plating technology, medical innovations, and detection devices to seek out IED’s, among others.

Although false, the perception that Israel is “a poor relation entirely dependent on American charity,” has had a pernicious effect. As Shmuel writes:

“What is no less serious is the spirit of dependence that prevails in a large part of the Israeli public. Even among those regarded as Israel’s ‘hard-nosed’ or ‘hawkish’ citizens there exists a sense of ‘what can we do? We know that it is wrong to agree to some demands of the United States, but we are, after all, dependent on them.'”

Not surprisingly, acting as a dependent hasn’t helped Israel. Just as in personal relations, so in international relations, acting like a dish rag only gets you treated more like a dish rag. In “The Prime Minister Is Heading for a Trap” (The Jerusalem Post, March 10, 1978), Shmuel writes:

“Israel’s status in Washington has deteriorated considerably ever since her leaders manifested the policy of subservience (or ‘co-ordination’) to American official ‘ideas,’ and the extent of their readiness to bend their declared political principles.”

Look how much Netanyahu has “achieved” by supinely following America’s lead over the years. He froze construction in Judea and Samaria in 2009. He refrained from entering Gaza in 2012. He apologized to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan in 2013.

In Netanyahu’s mind, he was keeping his eyes on a larger prize — gaining America’s support against Iran’s nuclear program. Netanyahu could have spared his backbone all that bending. The U.S. administration has completely undercut his efforts with its latest diplomatic moves. No chance of a military option now. Netanyahu literally looked sick after exiting his meeting with President Obama in September.

It is painful to watch Israel kowtow to America. It is doubly painful considering how many countries flout America’s will without repercussion. Indeed, America’s treatment of countries seems to be inversely proportional to how badly they act toward it. As historian Bernard Lewis observed, “America is harmless as an enemy but treacherous as a friend.”

It’s past time Israel shook itself free of its psychological chains and followed, in Shmuel’s words, “the policy of the straight back and common sense.” If Israel continues to act as if it is not an independent state, that terrible prospect may become reality.