The US-Israeli relationship faces a storm on the horizon | Michael H Fuchs | Opinion | The Guardian
Accordingly, a significant increase in the frequencies of easterly storms, in relation to distance from the seashore has been identified. Although. the frequencies of easterly storms, in relation to distance from the seashore has been identified. Although most of the stormy days are with westerly winds, the. One version of the relationship is all sunshine and rainbows – the other, a deepening extremism in both countries. And these two vastly.
However, Lebanon was under the Syrian Occupation, which took over the treaties and negotiations. In Augustafter the clash between Hezbollah and Israel, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said that Lebanon would be the "last Arab country to make peace with Israel" because of the large number of civilians that were killed in the Lebanon War.
Since the yearand due to many wars with Hezbollah, Israel treats Lebanon as an "enemy state",  although it is considering the possibility of a non-aggression pact. Following the September signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of PrinciplesMorocco accelerated its economic ties and political contacts with Israel.
In SeptemberMorocco and Israel announced the opening of bilateral liaison offices. Israel—Qatar relations Qatar and Israel do not currently have diplomatic relations, although they maintained economic relations between and Qatar is a major financial supporter of the Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas.
Saudi Arabia Main article: Israel—Saudi Arabia relations InSaudi Arabia announced the end of its ban on Israeli goods and services, mostly due to its application to the World Trade Organizationwhere one member country cannot have a total ban on another. It calls for Israel's withdrawal from territory occupied in June in order for peace with the Arab states; then-Crown Prince Abdullah extended a multilateral peace proposal based on withdrawal in At that time, Israel did not respond to the offer.
In Saudi Arabia again officially supported a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict which supported a full right of Palestinian refugees to move to Israel, which generated more official negative reactions from Israeli authorities. Israel—Syria relations and Iran—Israel proxy conflict Syria's relations with Israel are very poor, due to Syria's close ties with the anti-Israel militant group Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
SinceSyria has accepted the import of apples from farmers in the Golan Heightsterritory that it claims, through the Quneitra crossing. This was a result of the ongoing Israeli refusal to accept apples from Golan farmers reportedly due to over-supplywhich led to a plea by the farmers to the Syrian government to accept their produce before it became spoiled in order to prevent economic collapse.
Insome 10, tons of apples grown by Druze farmers in the Golan Heights were sent to Syria. Israel—Tunisia relations Tunisia participated in the Yom Kippur Warsending 1,—2, troops to fight alongside a coalition of Arab countries against Israel. Expressing "surprise", the Israeli Foreign Ministry said: Israel—Turkey relations Turkish firefighting plane sent to aid Israel, Turkey was the first Muslim-majority nation to formally recognize the State of Israel,  only one year after the Declaration of the Jewish State 28 March Israel was a major supplier of arms to Turkey.
Military, strategic, and diplomatic cooperation between Turkey and Israel were given high priority by the governments of both countries, which shared concerns with respect to regional instabilities in the Middle East. In Februaryrelations between Turkey and Israel suffered when Turkey hosted a delegation from the Palestinian group Hamasalthough on a formal visit to Turkey inthe Israeli then Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated that "Bilateral relations [between Turkey and Israel] are excellent.
Not only on a leader-to-leader level but also on a people-to-people level". In Januarythe Turkish government's condemnation of the —09 Gaza War severely strained relations between the two countries. After some diplomatic activity by U. President Barack Obama, Israeli PM Netanyahu did issue an apology over the flotilla events and Israel and Turkey agreed on financial compensation; in return, Turkey dropped its demand that the Gaza Strip blockade end and also removed state support from several lawsuits in Turkey that demanded the arrest and trial of Israeli military and political leaders who were in charge in during the flotilla incident.
The Leviathan gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean is a further source of friction. Israel is planning its exploitation in partnership with Cyprus, a state that Turkey does not recognize because of the Cyprus dispute. However, inTurkey and Israel began to work on diplomatic relations by holding a secret meeting, and events over the last 2 years have brought Leviathan into position as a project that will help both Ankara and Jerusalem and make Nicoisia into less of a potential problem.
United Arab Emirates Main article: Israel—United Arab Emirates relations Relations are tense. Following Israel's assassination of Mahmoud Al-MabhouhUAE announced that travelers suspected of being Israeli would not be admitted even if using a foreign passport. More recently, relations have improved to the extent that Israel has decided to open an office in Abu Dhabi, albeit only as a mission to the International Renewable Energy Agency.
Israel—Yemen relations They do not have diplomatic relations and relations between the two countries are very tense. People with an Israeli passport or any passport with an Israeli stamp cannot enter Yemen, and Yemen is defined as an "enemy state" by Israeli law.
Sub-Saharan Africa Israel has diplomatic relations with 41 of the 44 Sub-Saharan African states that are not members of the Arab Leagueincluding a number of Muslim-majority states. Angola—Israel relations Relations between Israel and Angola are based on trade and foreign policy. The Israeli ambassador to Angola is Avraham Benjamin.
Botswana—Israel relations The two countries established relations in The difficulty of resolving it was compounded by the fact that IDF had no reliable information as to whether Iraq was capable of fitting chemical warheads to its Scud missiles. Saddam Hussein's threat to incinerate half of Israel seared itself in the mind of the public but his Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, later said that Baghdad would use chemical weapons against Israel only if Jerusalem launched a nuclear strike.
Most senior IDF officers were opposed to the distribution of the masks because of the doubt surrounding Iraq's capability and because they worried that the distribution of gas masks would cause panic among the civilian population.
In cabinet, David Levy pressed for immediate distribution against the opinion of Moshe Arens and the defence establishment. Arens initially argued against distribution, suggesting it would cause panic and might be misperceived by Iraq as an indication that Israel was planning a pre-emptive strike. To ensure that this did not happen, Prime Minster Shamir made a series of public statements of mounting severity, making it clear that any attack on Israel would meet with an Israeli response.
His words were carefully chosen and the adjective 'terrible' featured prominently in characterizing the promised response. Shamir's warnings were widely interpreted by commentators in Israel and abroad to mean that an Iraqi attack on Israel with chemical weapons could provoke an Israeli nuclear response.
Shamir did nothing to contradict this interpretation of his statements. He seemed content to let the Western media drive home the message that tangling with Israel may lead to the obliteration of Baghdad. He recalled the Arab claim that chemical weapons were intended to balance Israel's nuclear weapons.
They have now been warned, he said, that the outcome might be different: He rejected out of hand a Soviet proposal in early September for the convening of an international conference to deal with all the disputes in the Middle East. The United States also rejected the Soviet proposal. Following a meeting with David Levy in Washington, Secretary of State James Baker stated that the Iraqi-Kuwaiti dispute and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute were two separate matters which had to be treated separately.
Israeli security forces used live ammunition to deal with a Muslim protest that turned into a riot, killing 21 of the demonstrators and wounding Israel was back in the headlines. The massacre on Temple Mount unleashed a universal wave of condemnation. Arab governments who had joined in the American-led coalition against Saddam Hussein came under attack for complicity in American double standards in rushing to the defence of Kuwait while doing nothing to end the year old Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
The very linkage that Saddam Hussein had failed to achieve was now highlighted by the brutal behaviour of the Israeli security forces. America was driven to vote in favour of two UN resolutions condemning Israel. President Bush also summoned several American Jewish leaders and warned them that Israel was undermining the coalition against Saddam Hussein. He even hinted that if the Jewish lobby turned against him, he would state publicly that Israel's behaviour endangered the life of American soldiers in the Gulf.
Foreign relations of Israel - Wikipedia
Previously the Shamir government had hoped that the crisis in the Gulf would enable Israel to maintain the status quo in the occupied territories and abort the Bush administration's efforts to promote an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. But the benefits of the Iraqi aggression for Israel turned out to be extremely short-lived. What the universal condemnation demonstrated was that there was a new equation in the making: This became the source of permanent tension in US-Israeli relations.
This tension was temporarily relieved on 29 November when the Security Council passed resolution'the mother of all resolutions,' authorizing the use of 'all necessary means' against Iraq unless it withdrew from Kuwait by 15 January The ultimatum seemed to suggest that America and her allies meant business.
Israel's elation was punctured the next day, however, when President Bush offered to go 'the extra mile for peace' by inviting Tariq Aziz to Washington for talks. While careful to avoid the impression that they were goading America to go to war, Israel and her influential friends in Washington questioned the wisdom of a policy of appeasement. Professor Yuval Neeman, the leader of the Tehia party and a leading cabinet hawk, recalled that George Bush had compared Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler and said that there was therefore no escape from comparing Bush with Neville Chamberlain.Biblical Storm 'Sent By GOD' Puts Barrier Between Israel, Islamic State
David Levy told a delegation from the European Parliament that Israel would assume the highest profile should her security come under threat. Levy also summoned the US Ambassador, William Brown, and told him that Israel expected the United States to stand by the commitments it took upon itself after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. In Israel's view, Levy said, the two principal US commitments had been to bring about the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait and to remove the Iraqi military threat.
Levy added that Israel had agreed to adopt its 'low profile' policy during the crisis largely because of this perception. This was the first time that the Israeli public heard about the alleged commitments from their powerful friend. Yet, taken together, Levy's statements to the European parliamentarians and the US ambassador amounted to an official warning that in the absence of firm action by the international community against Iraq, Israel reserved the right to take military steps on her own.
On 11 December, Shamir had a two-hour meeting with Bush at the White House which went some way towards repairing the rift between them. Bush assured Shamir that in the event of an unprovoked Iraqi attack, the US would come to Israel's aid. Bush stressed that his administration was doing its utmost to avoid linkage between the Gulf crisis and the Palestinian issue and that it was essential that Israel should do the same by refraining from unilateral action against Iraq.
According to one report in the Washington Post, Shamir promised not to mount a pre-emptive strike and to consult Bush before responding to any Iraqi attack. This report was denied, however, by officials in the Prime Minister's office. The test-firing of a Jericho anti-ballistic missile without notifying the US seemed to illustrate Israel's intent on preserving its own independence in the event of an Iraqi attack.
But by the end of the month, co-ordination between the Pentagon and the Israeli military had been stepped up. In return for pledging full consultation with the US before launching military action against Iraq, Israel was given access to prime US intelligence not normally supplied to other countries.
This provided a significant inducement for Israel to maintain the low profile and to refrain from creating unnecessary tensions. But here they met with a firm American rebuff. Israeli frustration was deepened by the news that James Baker was going to meet Tariq Aziz for talks in Geneva on 9 January. The experts in Military Intelligence were convinced that Saddam Hussein would not yield but they also estimated that unless he was knocked off his perch, he would be able to add nuclear capability to his arsenal within a few years.
Despite Bush's categoric rejection of any compromise in the upcoming talks, Israeli officials were privately wary of what was known as the 'no-deal deal. They also feared that some form of linkage between the Kuwaiti and the Palestinian issues may emerge out of the Geneva talks. Baker, however, rejected such linkage point-blank at his six-hour meeting with Aziz. When Aziz rejected the American ultimatum, Israel's fears were finally laid to rest.
IDF was put on the highest state of military readiness, with its reconnaissance and combat aircraft in the air around the clock and the civilian population prepared with sealed rooms and gas masks.
The failure of the talks was also followed by an escalation of the war of words, with the Iraqis saying that if they are attacked by America, they will attack Tel Aviv; the Americans saying that such an attack would constitute a flagrant provocation; and the Israelis warning that anyone who attacked them may not live to regret it. Prime Minister Shamir thought that Israel should continue to exercise self-restraint. The other school demanded a military response to neutralize the Iraqi threat.
On 11 JanuaryUnder-Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger who was noted for his pro-Israeli sympathies, arrived in Israel at the head of a high-level delegation. Their purpose was said to be 'to co-ordinate policy and strategy with Israel in the event that hostilities break out,' but their real mission was to act as babysitters, to ensure that Israel continued to lie low.
At the meeting with the Prime Minister, Eagleburger conveyed the President's request that Israel should refrain from retaliating against Iraq, even if attacked. Shamir made it clear that under no circumstances would Israel undertake not to retaliate if attacked.
However, he promised that Israel would try to stay out of the Gulf conflict, 'if it is only possible. This was a radical enough departure from Israel's traditional preference for surprise attacks.
But he and his colleagues were unanimous in their view that Israel, as a sovereign state, could not relinquish its basic right to self-defence. Under these circumstances, Eagleburger had to decline Shamir's request for operational co-ordination between the Israeli military and the US forces in the Gulf. They promised the Israeli officers swift and efficient action against the missile launch sites in western Iraq.
They said that the treatment will commence at the outbreak of hostilities and asked that Israel should not intervene. In their estimate, all the launchers could be destroyed in two days and they doubted that Israel could do any better. They met with scepticism and a polite refusal. Eagleburger then offered two batteries of Patriot missiles with their American crews in return for an Israeli promise not to respond to an Iraqi missile attack.
Once again he met with a polite refusal. Both the Chief of Staff and the Minister of defence wanted to preserve the principle that no foreign power could be entrusted with Israel's security. Another abrupt change of policy occasioned by the Gulf crisis involved Jordan. The Likud, on the other hand, took the line that 'Jordan is Palestine' and, consequently, that if the Palestinians were to overthrow the monarchy and turn Jordan into a Palestinian state, this would not endanger Israel's security and may indeed be a welcome change.
Ariel Sharon, the Housing Minister, was the most consistent and aggressive advocate of this line of argument inside the cabinet. This attitude had played an important part in pushing King Hussein into an alliance with Iraq, an alliance which provided him with his only deterrence against a possible move by Likud to realize its thesis that Jordan is Palestine. During the Gulf crisis Jordan assumed ever greater importance as a buffer and potential battleground between Iraq and Israel.
Likud leaders suddenly discovered the value of having a stable country under a moderate ruler on their eastern border. The change of tune was unmistakable.
Instead of issuing threats, the government began to send, through third parties, soothing messages to Amman to assure the King that Israel had no plans to attack him and to urge him not to allow the entry of Iraqi troops into Jordan. Shamir now sought a more direct channel of communication with Amman. On 4 January, the director-general of his office, Yossi Ben-Aharon, met senior Jordanian figures who were close to the King. Ben-Aharon assured the Jordanians that Israel had no intention of seizing the opportunity offered by the crisis in the Gulf to try and bring about a change of regime in Amman.
For their part, the Jordanians made it clear that under no circumstances would they allow Israeli forces to enter their territory or Israeli aircraft to use their air space. Some politicians, on the extreme right, did not share in the sudden conversion to the royalist cause.
Ariel Sharon was not impressed with the argument that Israel had to do her utmost to stop Jordan getting embroiled in the Gulf conflict. On the contrary, one of his motives for advocating swift and forceful military action against Iraq was his desire to destabilize the regime in Amman. The cabinet continued to receive intelligence briefings on the situation in Jordan but following the expiry of the ultimatum for Iraqi withdrawal, it redirected its attention to developments further east.
On this and subsequent occasions, the Americans were very economical with the information they provided to their Israeli colleagues. Cheney had been charged by the White House with the task of keeping the Israelis plugged in, but not so plugged in as to make them de facto members of the coalition. After months of uncertainty and bluster, Saddam Hussein carried out his threat to attack the Jewish state, dramatically raising the stakes in the Gulf War.
It was the first air attack on an Israeli city since The damage caused was limited because the Scud missiles, according to one military expert, were 'stone age technology. Another reason for the limited effect was that the Scuds were armed with only light warheads to enable them to cover the distance to reach Israel. But the psychological impact of the attack, both in Israel and in the Arab world, was profound.
Arens held an emergency meeting with the Chief of Staff and his deputy. Arens wondered whether they should not put aside the principle of self-reliance and accept after all the American offer of two batteries of Patriot missiles. The Patriots were a success story in Saudi Arabia, the other target of the Iraqi Scuds; the public wanted them badly; and awkward questions were beginning to be asked by people in the know about the earlier refusal of the American offer.
IDF experts did not rate the Patriots very highly but, taking public pressure into account, Dan Shomron recommended acceptance. Having had a phone call from Baker urging continuing restraint, Arens now called Cheney who instantly agreed to send the Patriots and promised that the Americans were going after western Iraq full bore and that there was nothing the Israelis could do which was not already being done. On 19 January, another 5 Scuds hit Tel Aviv, provoking a new round of tough oratory.
The real test came at the cabinet meeting on the 23rd, the day after a single Scud landed in Ramat Gan, killing three and wounding 96 people. Calls for immediate retaliation began to be heard inside and outside the cabinet but the military kept their cool.
Shortly before the cabinet meeting, the Chief of Staff and his deputy, troubled by this trend, asked to speak to the Prime Minister in the presence of the Defence Minister.
Shamir seemed convinced by the arguments against hitting back, Arens less so. At the cabinet meeting, the officers presented the operational plans and then asked for permission to express their opinion about the broader considerations that had to be taken into account in choosing the most appropriate response.
Shomron preferred what he termed 'important' - the destruction of the Iraqi military infrastructure - over the 'urgent' - hitting the missile launchers. Iraq's infrastructure was the main target, he said, hence the importance of co-operation with the United States which was doing most of the work.
Israel–Turkey relations - Wikipedia
If Israel's rear continued to sustain heavy blows, the urgent objective might outweigh the important one, leading to Israeli intervention. If chemical weapons were to be used against Israel, IDF would be capable of dealing with the missile problem and of inflicting punishment on Iraq. The IAF chief believed that 'the air force can do the job' and that was also Shomron's view, but they acknowledged that the IAF could not operate freely in Iraq without an American agreement.
Shomron and his deputy gave a cool analysis of Saddam Hussein's moves. The obvious motive for the missile attacks was to embroil Israel, break up the coalition, reduce pressure on his forces and possibly turn them westward, towards a target which would be considered legitimate in the eyes of many Arabs.
Under these circumstances, Shomron and Barak thought it would be a mistake for Israel to take military action. Arens could not help feeling that it would be better for Israel to make its contribution to the war effort but he did not press for action.
The advice of the military was thus decisive in persuading the politicians to persevere with the policy of non-involvement. In his talks with Israeli leaders, Eagleburger had to concede that the Scud launchers posed a greater problem than anticipated. Nevertheless, he returned home with the impression that, though troubled, the Israelis would react only if hit with chemical warheads.
This was not an accurate assessment; an attack causing heavy casualties, even from a conventional warhead, was liable to tip the delicate balance in favour of retaliation. The Israelis continued to press the Americans to divert substantial resources to the campaign against the troublesome launchers, to what General Norman Scharzkopf described as 'finding a needle in a haystack. Cheney was optimistic that they could suppress the missile sites though not as swiftly as Israel would wish.
In any case, he made it clear that the administration expected Israel to keep out of the conflict and he refused to give a green light to joint operations.
Barak and Ivri made it equally clear that Israel was not committed to respond only to chemical warheads and that one well aimed conventional warhead may force her to retaliate.
Following the visit, there was a noticeable increase in allied activity against the missile launchers and a corresponding decrease in the frequency and effectiveness of the attacks on Israel. To deter such a move, Israel employed a strategy of threatening ambiguity, of making thinly veiled references to 'the bomb in the basement' while carefully eschewing the adoption of an explicit nuclear posture.
If Seymour Hersh is to be believed, an American satellite detected that, following the first Scud barrage, Israeli missile launchers armed with nuclear warheads were moved into the open and deployed facing Iraq, ready to launch on command. According to Hersh, American intelligence picked up other signs indicating that Israel had gone on a full nuclear alert that would remain in effect for weeks.
The Americans shrewdly exploited these voices in their own efforts to dissuade Saddam Hussein from using chemical weapons. Dick Cheney stated on 2 February that if Iraq used chemical weapons against Israel, Israel may retaliate with non-conventional weapons. The statement was significant, firstly, because the warning was issued not in Washington's name but indirectly in Israel's name, secondly, because it confirmed that Israel was capable of realizing a non-conventional option, and, thirdly, because the warning to refrain from escalation was addressed only to Iraq and not to Israel.
As occasional missiles continued to be fired on Israel's soft underbelly from mobile launchers in western Iraq and the newly arrived Patriot batteries with their American crews had only partial success in intercepting them, pressure mounted for sending IDF into action.
On 11 February, Moshe Arens, accompanied by Ehud Barak and David Ivri, made a secret visit to Washington to urge the Americans to step up their assaults on the targets in Iraq which most concerned Israel and to see if they would give a green light for an Israeli intervention in the fighting.
His most important meeting was with President Bush. Bush claimed that the number of missile launches had significantly declined and doubted that Israel could do better than the Americans and their allies.
He also referred to public opinion polls in Israel which indicated very wide support for the official policy of restraint. Arens was reminded that Israel could only reach Iraq by passing through the air space of one of the Arab countries and that such action was liable to damage the coalition. Bush and his colleagues were prepared to meet some of Arens's requests for arms and financial aid but they showed no sympathy for Israel's desire to act and maintained their veto on operational co-ordination.
Officially, Israel was 'postponing' military response and keeping its options open, reserving the right to reply at a time and in a manner of its own choosing. But, in practice, Israel was beginning to resemble the man who is provoked but wants to be restrained from having to fight.
According to a version released by Washington when the war was over, after every Scud attack, Arens would ask Cheney for electronic identity codes for distinguishing between friend and foe and later for an air corridor through Saudi Arabia to enable Israeli warplanes to retaliate without overflying Jordan, but to no avail.
- Foreign relations of Israel
- 'Ties between US Jews and Israel could reach breaking point in 2017'
- The US-Israeli relationship faces a storm on the horizon
Shamir would weigh it all up, sit tight and nothing would happen. During the Gulf War, therefore, he was in his element.