Some See Shift in Basis of U.S.-Israeli Ties--Shared Values to Strategic Cooperation

In the course of his recent Middle East tour, Vice President George Bush was clearly taken aback when an adviser to Prime Minister Shimon Peres voiced concern about what he saw as a troubling shift in Israeli-American relations.

The adviser, Avraham Burg, spoke out at a meeting Bush held with young Israeli leaders. He said that traditionally, Israeli-American relations have been seen to have a moral foundation--mutual Judeo-Christian values, a shared commitment to political freedom and democracy, a common historical experience as pioneering nations.

But it seems now, he said, that the emphasis is on Israel as a “political and strategic asset,” with the idea of a moral partnership pushed aside.

Bitburg Cemetery Visit

Indicative of the erosion in this moral bond, Burg went on, were President Reagan’s controversial 1985 visit to the Bitburg cemetery in West Germany, which contains the graves of men who served in the Waffen SS , the elite military corps of Nazi Germany, and the U.S. failure to bar visits by President Kurt Waldheim of Austria because of allegations that he knew of and perhaps took part in Nazi atrocities during World War II.

Burg’s comments--an agitated Bush said they were “unfair, unfounded, and untrue”--were not typical. Officials on both sides described the Bush visit as a demonstration of solidarity. Burg’s comments seemed all the more out of context given what most analysts agree is an unprecedented closeness in the bilateral relationship that has evolved during President Reagan’s years in office.

However, according to U.S. and Israeli experts on the subject, Burg’s comments are symptomatic of real if not always logical Israeli feelings of insecurity about its ties to the United States--insecurity that typically worsens in the period leading up to and immediately following an American presidential election.

Samuel Lewis, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said in an interview: “I think there is a widespread conviction among Israelis of all political stripes . . . that we are a long way away, that we have a political system that produces rather wide swings in foreign policy, and that we have a lot of other fish to fry in the region and in Europe.”

On top of that, Lewis said, is “a historical memory, deep in their genes, of betrayal by non-Jews.”

While Reagan is viewed here as perhaps the best American president that Israel has ever had to work with, the visits last month of three leading 1988 campaign contenders underlined the fact that Reagan’s term is running out. Besides Bush, Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) were in Israel in July.

An Israeli official who asked not to be quoted by name said: “It is right that Reagan, on an emotional and maybe even on an ideological level, is very good to us. I have a feeling of love. The question is, what will it be with the next one?”

There is no doubt that after a rocky start, attributed among other things to Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the extension of Israeli law to the occupied Golan Heights, Israeli-American relations have undergone an extraordinary transformation since Reagan took office.

U.S. aid to Israel in the current fiscal year will total nearly $4 billion, a record.

As Bush noted during his visit, a 1983 agreement on strategic cooperation means that “our two countries . . . now engage in regular discussions about how to defend shared interests, for example in the eastern Mediterranean. We have held joint military exercises. We have made preparations for use of Israeli hospitals to treat American combat casualties. We are discussing pre-positioning of equipment. We help each other design, build, and test weapons.”

Israel was the third country, after Britain and West Germany, to join President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, the research program on space-based missile defenses popularly known as “Star Wars.”

But perhaps more than all the rest, Israel’s agreement to have a giant Voice of America radio transmitter based on its territory stands as a symbol of the change in the relationship. The transmitter will beam what Soviet authorities consider to be hostile propaganda into the Soviet Union, and the United States was hesitant about approaching Israel on the subject, given sensitivities here over the vulnerable status of about 2 million Soviet Jews.

“A decade ago,” former Ambassador Lewis said, “the overriding sense that this was getting Israel over-involved in the Cold War . . . would have outweighed the desire to be friendly to the United States.”

But no longer. It is this broader, strategic cooperation that forms the backdrop for concerns like those expressed to Bush by Avraham Burg.

According to Wolf Blitzer, long-time Jerusalem Post correspondent in Washington and author of a new book on Israeli-American relations, Burg’s comments are “reflective of a growing trend, particularly among the more liberal left-of-center types in Israel, as well as in the American Jewish community, that it’s dangerous for Israel because, while Israel may be a strategic asset today, tomorrow Egypt or Saudi Arabia may be a greater strategic asset.”

Strategic factors may come and go, Blitzer said in a telephone interview, but shared values are seen as more permanent, and therefore the better aspect of the relationship for Israel to emphasize.

Burg, who was interviewed after his meeting with Bush, said he sees no immediate threat to Israeli-American relations but that the shift from a moral to a strategic foundation could have longer-term consequences.

“Imagine a day will come when the Middle East won’t be as important as it is today,” he said. “What will be the status of the state of Israel? Not so high . . . because (then) we are not any more a political asset, or a strategic asset.”

Push in the 1970s

David Clayman, head of the office here of the American Jewish Congress, said that “for a long time a lot of Israeli and Jewish leaders were trying to sell the idea that Israel not only has a historical-moral connection to the United States, but it also has strategic import.”

The push was particularly pronounced in the late 1970s, when it was felt that a strategic rationale would be more effective to justify increased U.S. aid to Israel.

To a certain extent, those who wanted more emphasis on strategic ties succeeded under the Reagan Administration, Clayman said, and added: “So now you’re hearing the other side of the coin, saying: ‘Wait a minute! Let’s not concentrate only on the strategic interest. There’s the other side as well.’ You can’t have it both ways, but you want to have it both ways.”

The recent announcement that Israeli and the Soviet representatives will hold their first formal talks in 19 years raises the question of how secure Washington can feel in its relations with Israel.

But all the experts interviewed dismissed any chance of a significant Israeli shift toward the Soviet Union.