• Type:
  • Genre:
  • Duration:
  • Average Rating:

America

Why is there a special relationship between America and Israel?

The US and Israel have been involved in a special yet complicated relationship since the beginnings of the proposals for a Zionist state. Over the decades both sides have aided one another and have found mutual security in their actions. Aside from the strategic aspect of the partnership of the two states, Israel embodies an ideal deeply embroiled in American thought since the earliest years of the New World. With the help of America, Israel has succeeded in its primary mission, providing a state for its people, and no American administration has considered reversing the decision on 1947, which established Jewish sovereignty. Israel’s relationship with the United States lies at the heart of the Middle East conflict, as not only does America’s influence underpin Israel’s immense military power and hence unyielding attitude, but it may also be the key to any compromise. The basis of the US-Israel relationship is extralegal, not found in formal bilateral treaties or documents, but in the public and private statements of presidents and other government officials.

Balfour Declaration

In 1917 there was a debate on whether or not the Balfour Declaration should be put forward, and on September 3rd the British cabinet voted to learn if American president Woodrow Wilson approved of it. This Balfour Declaration which was adopted by the British war cabinet on October 31, 1917 stated, “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”. On September 10th Wilson’s Foreign Office official Colonel Edward House communicated to Lord Robert Cecil of the British cabinet that Wilson was reluctant to endorse it. Wilson was in an delicate situation as America was not at war with Turkey but rather its allies, so for him to publicly endorse the declaration would worsen US-Ottoman relations which were already strained due to the war. Chaim Weizmann who was the president of the Zionist organisation learned of this reluctance and cabled the declaration’s text to several Zionist leaders who were close to president Wilson in an attempt to change his mind. As a result, within 2 weeks the Zionists got Wilson to reverse his decision and in mid-October Wilson formally sent Britain his approval, telling them not to make it known publicly however. Wilson therefore risked harming US relations with the Ottomans in order to relieve the political pressure that was placed on him by Zionist leaders. Wilson’s approval is widely considered as decisive in the first step of the formulation of an Israeli state as well as the beginning of Israeli American relations, as one can only speculate whether the British would adopt the declaration without the American president’s approval[1].

Woodrow Wilson’s first two successors, Harding and Coolidge supported the Balfour Declaration as well, and in fact expanded the support for Zionism, becoming increasingly involved in the Zionist-Palestinian conflict throughout the 1920s. The actions of the White House and Congress during the Harding and Coolidge administrations in support of Zionism were taken despite Wilson’s claim of the people’s ‘rights to self-determination’, with these pro-Zionist steps being taken in spite of the 1920 and 1921 Arab riots.

During the 12 year presidency of Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945), British-Zionist relations deteriorated and the Zionists began looking more to America than to England for help. Roosevelt tried to avoid any involvement by only offering limited aid to Nazi victims, although Roosevelt did support the heavy immigration of Jews into Palestine just like the previous 3 administrations. As British-Zionist relations deteriorated even further during the Second World War, throughout the war, the Zionists had successfully worked on increasing their control over the American Jewish population, therefore sufficiently helping mobilise the American public opinion[2].

Post-WW2

After the Nazi defeat and WW2, an estimated 1 million Jews were displaced around non-Soviet Europe (Jews behind the iron curtain were not allowed to leave the communist regime), leading America and the Truman administration to a deep involvement in solving the problem of the Zionist-Palestinian conflict. Truman was highly aware of his voters’ opinions and in 1945, US Jews were split between Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists, all sending Truman conflicting signals. Truman met with the representatives of all 3 camps on several occasions each time reiterating that he was too preoccupied with the cold war to increase involvement in the Jewish immigration problem. However Truman did notably state that the formation of a Jewish state would cause a Third World War. In October 4, 1946, there was a sign that Zionist influences in Washington had got to Truman, as Truman gave a speech stating that the US could support “a viable Jewish State in the area of Palestine”. In November, four heads of US diplomatic missions in Arab states met with Truman and warned him that his pro-Zionist statements threatened US interests. He reportedly replied, “I’m sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism, I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”[3].

Formation of Israeli State

On February 17, 1947, Britain announced that it lacked authority to give Palestine to the Arabs or the Jews, or to divide it between them. Britain said it thus had no choice but to submit the issue to the UN, and it did, and the UN general assembly opened a special session in April. At that time the figures against US support for a Jewish state included Defence Secretary James Forrestal, Secretary of State George Marshall, other State department personnel, and consular officials in the Middle East, as they feared such support would not only lead the Arabs to cut their oil supplies, but also become Soviet allies. As a result of big pressure mounted on the Truman administration from Zionists in the US, ahead of the vote for the 1947 partition of Palestine, US government officials pressurised other states to vote ‘yes’. Michael Comay, the head of Jewish Agency’s New York office stated that during the last 48 hours before the final vote, presidential aides, members of congress and even Supreme court justices joined together in an intensive lobby to secure positive votes, with examples of this action including Supreme court justices cabling the Philippines president, threatening him with negative consequences regarding Philippines interest in America if he did not change his vote from ‘no’ to ‘yes’, Truman aid Nile orchestrated similar pressure on Liberia and France, which were other key votes. These votes were crucial in securing a ⅔ majority in favour of the partition when the vote was held on November 29. As a result, the Zionists now had a UN resolution that favoured a Jewish state and allotted 53.46% of Palestine to the Jews, even though they occupied only 5-6% of its territory. Israel then declared its statehood on May 14 1948. Because of the intense US lobbying most states viewed the partition plan as an American project[4].

Relations throughout the Arab Israeli wars

The day after the Israeli declaration of independence, five Arab states, Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Egypt and Iraq declared war on Israel. The US supported Israel throughout the war through both arms sales as well as morally. Israel repeatedly violated the truce agreement signed on July 19, 1948, by continuing its major offensives in the Negev desert. Despite this and strong State department objections, Truman continued his support for Israel, in doing so sacrificing the basic rights of around 1.4 million Palestinians. In early 1949, the UN negotiated a series of armistices between Israel and the Arab states involved, leaving Israel in control of 77% of Palestinian land. Through its role in the UN, America helped take even more land than in the 1947 partition plan through truce violations[5].

The 1967 Arab Israeli war broke out in a hostile atmosphere where American policy was pointed towards punishing Egypt due to its association with the Soviet Union during the 1960s at the helm of the cold war, and aiding its enemies, among them Israel. The outbreak of war in June 1967 revealed the regional fragility at the time. Despite increasing demand for Arab oil, the 1967 war was a catalyst for US support for Israel increasing enormously. In fact, it is reported that the US encouraged Israel to attack Egypt in order to weaken president Nasser, who had well developed anti-imperialist tendencies. Furthermore, by defeating Nasser, Israel opened the way for conservative Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, Libya and Kuwait to use their financial resources to neutralise the threat to their nations coming from Nasser’s Egypt[6].

On the 6th of October, 1973, Egypt launched an attack on Israel through the Suez Canal, in addition to a powerful Syrian offensive on the Golan Heights. After initial Egyptian and Syrian successes, the battle started going Israel’s way from October 17. There was a cease-fire signed on the 24th, giving the US time to evaluate the situation. Several days later the US State Department announced the start of an airlift of military supplies to Israel to counter the Soviet airlift of supplies to Egypt and Syria. President Nixon therefore formally asked Congress for $2.2 billion in immediate military aid to Israel. For the first time the US had formally taken Israel’s side in an Arab Israeli conflict. However in 1974, Richard Nixon was replaced by Gerald Ford in the White House, who took a harder line on Israel and threatened a reduction of US support for Israel if it didn’t withdraw from Sinai, and reduce its aggression in the region. Jimmy Carter then set up a meeting in Camp David between Israeli and Egyptian presidents Ernest Begin and Anwar Sadat.

Ultimately, the talks succeeded, and Israel and Egypt signed the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty in 1979. Israel subsequently withdrew its troops and settlers from the Sinai, in exchange for normal relations with Egypt and a lasting peace, with last Israeli troops exiting on April 26, 1982[7].

 

The Nuclear Question

The prospect of nuclear war in the Middle East unleashed by Israel and beyond the capacity of the Bush administration to control was a real, but little publicised element of the 1990-91 crisis in the Persian Gulf. If nuclear war had occurred it would have transformed both the conflict and its consequences. The spectre of atomic warfare in the Middle East has placed the region’s nuclearization at the heart not only of US-Israeli relations, but also at the center of Israel’s drive to preserve its regional nuclear hegemony.

In December 1990, a senior air force officer pronounced that his branch of the armed services was ready “on every level, [including] non-conventional warfare capability.”9 The day that the US-led bombing of Iraq began, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld warned that “if [Saddam Hussein] fires chemical weapons at Tel Aviv, someone in Tel Aviv may go crazy, and he knows it.”

Based on signals from Israeli leaders that they would enter the war against Iraq only if the latter breached the non-conventional threshold, the Bush administration wanted to destroy Iraq’s ballistic missile capability in order to forestall the use of these weapons for a chemical attack against Israel[8].

Present Day

In America, views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more partisan than they’ve been since 1978, according to one study, which revealed that 79% of Republicans say their sympathies lie more with Israel than with the Palestinians, while only 27% of Democrats are more sympathetic to Israel. Another study revealed that, while a large majority of Democrats see Israel as a strategic asset, 55% of Democrats also see Israel as a strategic burden, and 60% of Democrats believe the United States should impose sanctions or take serious action in response to Israeli settlements. In the realm of trade, Israel’s trade to the United States is essential as the number of dollars created by exports from Israel create the highest number of U.S. jobs among its free-trading partners. For Israel, the United States remains a vital free- trading partner as it provides the country with an outlet for goods and services[9]. Donald Trump is backing Netanyahu’s government with hardly a critical word regarding Israeli activity towards the Palestinian people, and in 2018 announced the opening of a US embassy to Israel in Jerusalem. From the vantage point of the United States, Israel today behaves like a dependable ally in a threatening world.

To many observers, the US-Israeli connection appears to possess its own dynamism which seems to be drawing the United States almost inexorably into an increasing direct involvement in the complexities of the volatile Middle East. U.S.-Israel relations continue to be an important source of economic, potential and financial support to both countries a partnership that continues to grow with time. This varied connection between the two countries will have greater implications in the future, and should also provide a good buffer against shocks in the world economy.

 

[1] https://archive.org/details/americafoundingo00mulh/page/60

[2] https://archive.org/details/americafoundingo00mulh/page/60

[3] https://archive.org/details/americafoundingo00mulh/page/60

[4] https://archive.org/details/americafoundingo00mulh/page/60

[5] https://archive.org/details/americafoundingo00mulh/page/60

[6] https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA035072/page/n11

[7] https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA035072/page/n11

[8] https://www.jstor.org/stable/4328496?casa_token=4Od6NMkFoiwAAAAA:tplZfzOChzDtkYh-t5ba0J_ZEWx-G4pxgs1qvWRRChB2KZLkJmpYbEuAaHrvoY1x4K0OUueKxiiJ8tVW1Oj_KEOhaVEeVXXoDAwg50H_3Fh8As21XCRv-Q&seq=10#metadata_info_tab_contents

[9] https://borgenproject.org/growing-importance-u-s-israel-relations/

Does America need Saudi Arabia?

America is pretty much less dependent on Saudi oil now, but why does it still need Saudi Arabia?

Important links we want you to check out;

Sponsor our next video – https://www.fundmyvideo.com/kjvids
Keep us Independent – https://www.fundmypage.com/kjvids
KJ Vids Book Store – https://www.kjvids.co.uk/books
Patreon Perks – https://www.patreon.com/kjvids
All other enquiries – info@kjvids.co.uk

Watch our other Playlists

Geopolitics – https://goo.gl/haQTbJ
Global Trends – https://goo.gl/9q2NHL
International Relations – https://goo.gl/Jzvous
Leaders – https://goo.gl/46fhwA
Public Opinion – https://goo.gl/BvNicA
Strategy – https://goo.gl/Z1NnqW
Quick History – https://goo.gl/fnVkbA

Africa – https://goo.gl/4MQ4Ts
America – https://goo.gl/cTBuji
East Asia – https://goo.gl/73hZsK
Europe – https://goo.gl/TMq2cv
Middle East & The Gulf – https://goo.gl/Vk9jYD
UK – https://goo.gl/KSW9fz
South Asia – https://goo.gl/Pd2nRf
South America – https://goo.gl/BZH8Ch

Was Jimmy Carter a weak President?

Jimmy Carter served as the 39th US President from 1977 to 1981. Some of the key foreign policy events of his time include the Panama Canal treaty, the Camp David Peace Accords between Israel and Egypt, the recognition of China and the Iran Hostage crisis.

In his capacity as the President, many people describe him as a weak President and failing in his foreign policy vision, whilst others see his failures as inherited rather than choices and think he did a great job. Alan Singer, a social studies educator at the Hofstra University ranked him 8th worst President of all time, but after watching this video, you can decide that for yourself.

I’m Kasim, welcome to KJ Vids and in a brand-new series of videos, we will look at the foreign policy of world leaders from the past and present. These videos will not be full biographies about the lives of Prime Ministers and Presidents, but rather, we will only be looking at their times in power from a foreign policy perspective. We will look at the key geopolitical matters of their times and how they dealt with various countries.

Would you like to support our channel?

If you enjoyed or learnt something from this video, you may kindly support our crowdfunding campaign on www.fundmyvideo.com/kjvids

Fund My Video enables video creators to recover costs for their videos, which are much higher than any revenues they receive for most channels. Most YouTubers make videos as a hobby and spend dozens of hours editing videos for little in return. Your contributions towards this channel will significantly help us create more content with even better quality. Many thanks for your support.

For business and other enquiries please email info@kjvids.co.uk

Links we want you to check out;

KJ Vids Book Store – https://www.kjvids.co.uk/books
Patreon Perks – https://www.patreon.com/kjvids
Fund My Video Page – https://www.fundmyvideo.com/kjvids

The rise of digital dictatorships

The Rise of Digital Dictatorships

Many people thought that the internet and the rise of social media would quickly usher in a wave of political reforms in countries that are ruled by dictators and authoritarianism.

But Governments in authoritarian regimes have been remarkably successful at adapting to the perceived dangers posed to their political authority by the Internet. I’m Kasim, this is KJ Vids and in this video, we will look at how the internet has actually strengthened dictatorships.

Would you like to support our channel?

If you enjoyed or learnt something from this video, you may kindly support our crowdfunding campaign on www.fundmyvideo.com/kjvids

Fund My Video enables video creators to recover costs for their videos, which are much higher than any revenues they receive for most channels. Most YouTubers make videos as a hobby and spend dozens of hours editing videos for little in return. Your contributions towards this channel will significantly help us create more content with even better quality.

Many thanks for your support.

For business and other enquiries please email info@kjvids.co.uk

Are Corporates MORE POWERFUL than States? – KJ Vids

Who is more POWERFUL, CORPORATIONS OR STATES?

Amazon is now worth $1,000,000,000,000, but how powerful are corporations like Amazon compared to States?

It has become apparent that international relations are anything but a one-sided story of either state or corporate power. Globalisation has changed the rules of the game, empowering corporations but bringing back state power through new transnational state-corporate relations. International relations has become a giant three-dimensional chess game with states and corporations as intertwined actors.

States using corporations to achieve geopolitical goals in an increasingly hostile environment, and powerful corporations perhaps using more aggressive strategies to extract profits in response. If this is where we’re heading, it could have a lasting impact on the world order.

Would you like to support our channel?

If you enjoyed or learnt something from this video, you may kindly support our crowdfunding campaign on www.fundmyvideo.com/kjvids

Fund My Video enables video creators to recover costs for their videos, which are much higher than any revenues they receive for most channels. Most YouTubers make videos as a hobby and spend dozens of hours editing videos for little in return. Your contributions towards this channel will significantly help us create more content with even better quality.

Many thanks for your support.

For business and other enquiries please email info@kjvids.co.uk

America and Turkey, FRIENDS or FOES? – KJ Vids

The close U.S.-Turkish relationship dates back to the early days of the Cold War. That’s when Turkey sent its troops to fight alongside U.S. soldiers in the Korean War. In return, Turkey become an important NATO member and a bulwark against Soviet expansionism in the eastern Mediterranean. As of 2018, Turkey’s armed forces are the fourth most powerful in the Alliance. And the Incirlik air base in Southern Turkey serves as a critical hub for U.S. fighter jets in their Middle East missions, particularly over Iraq and Syria.

But despite the current cooperation between the U.S. and Turkey, the strategic alliance and trust between the countries began to falter with the end of the Cold War. I’m Kasim, this is KJ Vids and in this video, we will look at the US-Turkish Relationship.

We hope you enjoyed and learn’t something new from our video. You can help us make more videos by supporting our crowdfunding campaign;

Patreon Link – https://www.patreon.com/kjvids
Fund My Page Link – https://www.fundmypage.com/kjvids

All Rights Reserved. Contact info@kjvids.co.uk if you are interested in licensing our content, advertising, require video editing services or would like to collaborate in other ways.

UK and US: The myth of the special relationship

▶ Check out my gear on Kit: https://kit.com/kjvids

The wreckage of WW2 left Britain effectively bankrupt and militarily overextended, whilst America emerged as the new superpower.

In order to stay relevant in global politics, Britain considered it essential to continue Churchill’s wartime alliance with the US.

In order to stay relevant in global politics, Britain considered it essential to continue Churchill’s wartime alliance with the US.

Britain allowed America to establish bases for B-29 bombers initiating foreign military bases on British soil.

The Secretary of State, Ernest Bevin, acknowledged the gravity of this decision and said “Permanent peacetime bases involved quite new principles.”

By 1950, the Americans were basing bombers carrying nuclear weapons in Britain as well as established NATO.

Even though WW2 ended, Britain took an unprecedented decision to continue conscription into peacetime.

Britain paid a “blood price” to show their commitment to US foreign policy and to project itself as a global power like the US.

This came at the peak of the Korean War when the Communist North invaded the South in June 1950.

British chiefs were opposed to sending troops to Korea to avoid harming relationswith Mao Zedong’s Communist China.

British chiefs were opposed to sending troops to Korea to avoid harming relationswith Mao Zedong’s Communist China.

“Refusal to provide troops would harm Anglo-American relations.” The cabinet decided that “British land forces should be sent in order to consolidate Anglo-American friendship and to placate American public opinion.”

In 1956, Britain’s futile attempt in invading Egypt in alliance with France and Israel was cut short by American political pressure.

Yet the British remained fully committed to maintaining an alliance with the USAregardless of the post-war humiliation.

Similarly, besides the strong opinion against America’s Vietnam war, Britain supplied military hardware and troops.

There are countless more examples in recent history that show that the “special” relationship only benefits one side.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Support our content by donating to fundmypage.com/kjvids

Website – www.kjvids.co.uk
Facebook – www.facebook.com/KJVids
Twitter – www.twitter.com/kjvids2016
Instagram – www.instagram.com/kjvidsofficial

All Rights Reserved. Contact info@kjvids.co.uk if you are interested in licensing our content, advertising or working with us in other ways.

How America Became a Superpower

The United States is the world’s most powerful country by far, with a globe-spanning network of alliances and military bases.

Expansionism was always in America’s DNA, as a country founded by the expulsion and slaughter of American Indians.

But after America reached the Pacific coast, there was a real debate as to whether it should continue its growth as an imperial power beyond North America’s shores.

This debate came to the fore after the Civil War, which removed the principal barrier to expansion. The controversy over whether slavery would be expanded to newly acquired territories.

Though the expansionists were initially stymied, they won out for a surprising reason: the Industrial Revolution.

The rapid post-war growth of the US economy required an increasingly centralized state to manage it.

The more power that was concentrated in the executive branch and bureaucracy, the easier it was for the president to acquire territories abroad.

This culminated in the Spanish-American war in 1898, which ended with America acquiring a whole lot of different territories around the globe.

America was officially a global power, one that intervened in a number of countries, made major diplomatic moves in East Asia, and played a critical role in ending World War I.

The next crucial step, though, came after World War II. The United States was the only country to emerge from the war in strong economic and military shape, and thus was in a unique position to shape the terms of the peace.

The result was a global financial system, called the Bretton Woods system, aimed at coordinating the global economy and preventing another Great Depression — and the United Nations, created to preserve the postwar peace.

Competition with the Soviet Union led the United States to establish its first permanent major non-wartime alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

It also led the United States to grow its military and political presence around the world in an effort to contain the spread of communism, leading to interventions in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan and alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia and South Korea.

After the Soviet Union fell, the US could have chosen to withdraw from these alliances and international commitments.

But it didn’t, seeing them as critical institutions for preserving peace and prosperity even after the Soviet threat had receded.

Today, the United States remains as the world’s most connected and pivotal power, and will remain so in the near future, although the signs of its decline are now visible to all.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Support our content by becoming a KJ Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/kjvids

Website – www.kjvids.co.uk
Facebook – www.facebook.com/KJVids
Twitter – www.twitter.com/kjvids2016
Instagram – www.instagram.com/kjvidsofficial

All Rights Reserved. Contact info@kjvids.co.uk if you are interested in licensing our content, advertising or working with us in other ways.

The Truth Behind the 1989 U.S. Invasion of Panama

The raid into Panama was the largest US combat operation since the Vietnam War. At the time the US trotted out various “noble justifications.”

The narrative was to overthrow the military dictator Manuel Noriega who was accused of drug trafficking and supressing democracy.

A key narrative was that Manuel endangered U.S nationals, similar to how Russia justified the invasion of Crimea and its intervention in Eastern Ukraine in 2014 – to “protect Russian speaking nationals”

But in an all too familiar fashion, this wasn’t the true story. Like Saddam, Noriega enjoyed US support and was actually recruited by the CIA before he turned into a wayward ally.

Noriega was recruited as a CIA informant while studying at a military academy in Peru. He received intelligence and counterintelligence training at the School of the Americas at Fort Gulick in Panama, in 1967. He remained on the CIA payroll until February 1988.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

We’re also currently running a crowdfunding campaign to help our operation produce more and better videos. You may donate what you towards our project here – http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/kj-vids

Support our content by becoming a KJ Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/kjvids

Website – www.kjvids.co.uk
Facebook – www.facebook.com/KJVids
Twitter – www.twitter.com/kjvids2016
Instagram – www.instagram.com/kjvidsofficial

All Rights Reserved. Contact info@kjvids.co.uk if you are interested in licensing our content, advertising or working with us in other ways.

Trump on Jerusalem – 10 Days On

Violence, protests and arrests have followed US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Donald Trump made the announcement on December 6 and said the US would begin the process of moving its embassy to the city from Tel Aviv. In this video we take a look at five key developments since his announcement.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Support our content by becoming a KJ Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/kjvids

Sign up to our website and submit video suggestions:
www.kjvids.co.uk

Like our Facebook page for exclusive updates:
https://www.facebook.com/KJVids

Follow us on Twitter to be informed when we post:
https://twitter.com/kjvids2016

All Rights Reserved. Contact info@kjvids.co.uk if you are interested in licensing our content, advertising or working with us in other ways.

Scroll to top