On Israel, I think it is accurate to describe Israel as a friend but not an ally. As you note, we have deep emotional ties to Israel (and vice versa). But when it comes to national interests versus helping their ally, it is clear where Israel will draw the line.
Consider Ukraine. That is currently the most pressing issue the US is addressing. We see defeat of Russia in some form as an important national issue and constantly push other nations to support Ukraine to the maximum extent. Yet Israel has hesitated if not outright balked at doing so. And why? Because their national interest dictates that they maintain cordial ties with Russia, a major player in Syria. That outweighs any interest they may have in supporting US goals vis a vis Ukraine.
And fine: nations have a responsibility to put a priority on their national interests. But by so doing they show how limited their responsibilities are to the US. And we should do the same: it can't be a one-way obligation.
Thoughtful & thought provoking commentary as usual. I am reading this & commenting on a day (Sat. Oct. 7) when violent events are once again shaking up the Middle East in unpredictable and dangerous ways!
I land a different place because I tend to adhere to the convention of referring to allies and partners, with the former referring to treaty allies. That isn't a bright line, by that standard many of our major non-NATO allies, also a term of art, are really partners. And we do have fraught relationships within the institutional congressionally approved treaty alliance structure, most notably Turkey.
But I do think it's a line worth drawing for the purpose of institutional arrangements. I generally advocate for more cooperation with treaty allies and also agree with you that the U.S. should switch to cultivating a common European defense, while being clear eyed that Europe will have diverging priorities at times. But an institutional network where frenemies are largely outside the tent has some real value.
Thus, security guarantees really make me feel like the administration is giving away the store. Major non-NATO ally to Saudi Arabia, I don't love it but maybe if they drive a hard bargain and Egypt is already in that tent anyways. But anything beyond that I think undercuts our ability to cooperate with the large treaty ally network. If it miraculously was accompanied by a Israeli-Palestinian peace deal I would actively consider it, once I finished applying mustard to and eating my hat, but for anything short of that I'd be rooting for the Senate to kill it.
Wonderfully argued, Noah. (As usual.)
On Israel, I think it is accurate to describe Israel as a friend but not an ally. As you note, we have deep emotional ties to Israel (and vice versa). But when it comes to national interests versus helping their ally, it is clear where Israel will draw the line.
Consider Ukraine. That is currently the most pressing issue the US is addressing. We see defeat of Russia in some form as an important national issue and constantly push other nations to support Ukraine to the maximum extent. Yet Israel has hesitated if not outright balked at doing so. And why? Because their national interest dictates that they maintain cordial ties with Russia, a major player in Syria. That outweighs any interest they may have in supporting US goals vis a vis Ukraine.
And fine: nations have a responsibility to put a priority on their national interests. But by so doing they show how limited their responsibilities are to the US. And we should do the same: it can't be a one-way obligation.
Thoughtful & thought provoking commentary as usual. I am reading this & commenting on a day (Sat. Oct. 7) when violent events are once again shaking up the Middle East in unpredictable and dangerous ways!
I land a different place because I tend to adhere to the convention of referring to allies and partners, with the former referring to treaty allies. That isn't a bright line, by that standard many of our major non-NATO allies, also a term of art, are really partners. And we do have fraught relationships within the institutional congressionally approved treaty alliance structure, most notably Turkey.
But I do think it's a line worth drawing for the purpose of institutional arrangements. I generally advocate for more cooperation with treaty allies and also agree with you that the U.S. should switch to cultivating a common European defense, while being clear eyed that Europe will have diverging priorities at times. But an institutional network where frenemies are largely outside the tent has some real value.
Thus, security guarantees really make me feel like the administration is giving away the store. Major non-NATO ally to Saudi Arabia, I don't love it but maybe if they drive a hard bargain and Egypt is already in that tent anyways. But anything beyond that I think undercuts our ability to cooperate with the large treaty ally network. If it miraculously was accompanied by a Israeli-Palestinian peace deal I would actively consider it, once I finished applying mustard to and eating my hat, but for anything short of that I'd be rooting for the Senate to kill it.