The United States is the first country which had recognized the independence of Israel in 1948, after its announcement of statehood. From that instant US had supported Israel military, economically and strategically. The 75 years of cooperation and collaborations among both states is based on shared democratic values and dedication of both states to regional security, economic success and democracy.[1]United States has provided both support military and political support to Israel throughout its historical wars with Arab states, including Six day war, Yom Kippur war and Lebanon war. The current situation of middle east where Israel is extending its horrific attacks beyond Gaza, to Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Yemen shows US support for the. The US is supporting Israel militarily, economically and providing them political support, justifying their aggression and expansion. The U.S has always been engaged in representing Israel as greater and powerful states in the Middle East. The political and military diplomacy of U.S towards Israel has been fluctuated throughout their partnership. During this time U.S has always put forward the security of Israel by keeping in view its interest intact. Israel has been provided with a huge military support and aid along with political back by U.S.
Aims
This article aims to provide a detailed U.S political and military diplomacy towards Israel after 1990, by providing a historical background of its diplomatic ties before 1990. The era of 1990 was signified in their diplomatic relations as U.S emerged as a hegemon after cold war and an advocate of liberal ideals along with democratic values. The changing interests of U.S in Middle East impacted the U.S diplomacy towards Israel after 1990, is central of this article It aims to emphasize the similarities and the adaptations of U.S political and military diplomacy towards Israel after 1990.
History of US- Israel political and military diplomacy till 1990
Since the independence of Israel in 1948, the diplomatic and military ties between the United States and Israel were evident based on strategic interests and geopolitical consequences. US had strategies to guarantee Israel’s place in Middle East and advance American influence in the region. Thus U.S had provided economic aid, military support and diplomatic backing to Israel. Some of the historical evidences where Israel enjoyed U.S support include;
The 1948 Arab-Israeli War: Birth of a Diplomatic Relationship
After the Arab-Israel war, the U.S in May 14, 1948 had recognized Israel an independent state, under the presidency of President Harry Truman, and James Grover McDonald, the US ambassador had established the diplomatic ties with Israel by presenting credentials in March 28, 1449. The early support from U.S towards Israel was nuanced due to the war, and involvement of Arab states, so U.S had enforced regional arms embargo to avoid tension with Arab states. This embargo inhibits U.S to provide arms support to Israel directly. So the Jewish organizations within U.S had provided significant funds to Israel, and helped them in supply of critical resources. This embargo was put on only as a diplomatic move by U.S to balance Arab nations, because the veto of U.S in 1947 supporting the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, had already highlighted their political engagement with Israel. [2]
The six day war, a shift towards military support
In reaction to growing threats and military concentrations around its frontiers, Israel had launched a preemptive strike against its Arab neighbors, notably Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Israel within six days gained a massive victory, taking control of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem, Gaza strip and Sinai Peninsula. The United States supported Israel politically and morally highlighting its right to self defense, but did not intervene directly in the conflict. This war had resulted in the US military assistance to Israel at larger scale. U.S had provided Israel with military aid including some of its advanced weapons such as A-4 Skyhawk aircrafts that had assisted Israel to keep Qualitative Military Edge over its neighbors. After the Israel’s victory US had supported it politically by vetoing resolutions that criticized their territorial gains in neighboring states. This shows their diplomatic commitment to Israel’s security. This war had caused a notable change in the U.S Israel ties, as in terms of strategy U.S made Israel a vital ally in Middle East throughout the cold war, acting as a check on the Arab nations supported by Soviet Union. In terms of politics, the United States and Israel states to develop closer connections with military and financial assistance emerging as key pillars. [3]
Yom Kippur war: US massive support for Israel
During Yom Kippur war on October 6, 1973 Egypt and Syria unexpectedly attack Israel, causing Israeli troops to suffer a lot during the early stages of war. In order to support its friend the United States had launched Operation Nickel Grass an airlift effort that sent in 2.2 billion dollars worth of military equipment, including planes, tanks and ammunitions. With this emissive support Israel was able to win this war again. In addition to this politically the United States backed Israel by using United Nation as a platform to bring ceasefire deals among these conflicting parties. These efforts had converted the U.S military and economic support for Israel to a more long lasting commitment, which aims to form a peace talk among Israel and its enemies. The Camp-David Accords were laid by USA after the war as a major actor in Middle East to bring peace among Israel and Egypt in 1978. These actions were actually known as Arab-Israel “peace process”.[4]
The Lebanon War: Tactical Alignment
The Unites states response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 which sought to eliminate and drive Palestinian liberation organization (PLO) out of southern Lebanon, was not entirely clear. Although the U.S had provided Israel with military support such as assisting the with F15 and F-16 fighter jets, their concerns over civilian casualties and Israel’s conduct of war were also there. Despite international pressure for peacekeeping and withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, America had kept the strategic interest of Israel and U.S interests over peace in the region.
US economic aid to Israel in 1980
US economic aid to Israel had drastically risen in the period of 1980s, reaching a total of 3 billion dollars annually. For Israel to remain economical stable, flourished and emerge as a regional power in the Middle East, which is important for US too, can be done by that aid only. The US had further strengthened the military alliances with Israel during this time. By partnering projects such as Arrow Missile Defense Program, which aims to counter missile threats, the United States further enhanced Israel’s defense capabilities. After the Iranian revolution, the Regan administration placed an emphasis on Israel’s role in containing Soviet Union in Middle East, by actively backing Israel by aid, military assistance and Arab-Israel ties. Thus this period was characterized by strong alliance among both US and Israel, and US military and diplomatic cooperation with Israel. [5]
US Military and Political Relations with Israel since 1990
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
Background
The Gulf war of 1990 to 1991 demonstrated the depth and complexity of the relationship between the two Israel and United States. During this tense situation US had used its political diplomacy to pressurize Israel not to respond to Iraqi attacks. Although the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and its attacks on Israel were of huge concern but, For the sake of sustaining US lead coalition which also includes Arab states, Israel response should not be there.
Iraq launched scud missiles towards the Israel towns of Haifa and Tel Aviv on January 18, 1991, in an attempt to incite Israel to retaliate and take part in the war. Iraq in this attack had launched nearly 39 missiles against Israel which killed nearly three people leaving hundreds injured. These attacks were done to weaken the U.S lead coalition which includes Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria. An outright reaction from Israel may have weakened Arab involvement in the alliance and endangered the liberation of Kuwait form Iraqi control. The united
Diplomatic response from US
The importance of coalition, unity and larger strategic goal of regional stability and interest were highlighted by United States, which applied considerable diplomatic pressure on Israel to abstain from retaliation. In this diplomatic effort senior U.S officials spoke directly with the Israeli leadership and urged moderation despite of the oblivious provocation. Israel finally cooperated with Israel U.S request after heated internal discussion. Israel’s understanding of the value of its partnership with U.S and its alignment with more comprehensive American-led Middle East strategy were both evident in this decision .
The United States immediately offered Israel military assistance in return for this forbearance, supplying Patriot Antiballistic missile System from Europe to bolster Israel’s defense. Despite subsequent criticism of their effectiveness the Patriot system were viewed as a representation of American dedication to Israel’s security. Although some estimates put the Patriots success rate around 10%, which was estimated by US arms as 40%. Notwithstanding its drawbacks the installation of this defense system gave Israel surety and strengthens its alliance with US, portraying it as a trustworthy friend.
Israel appealed to United States to handle the larger threat that Iraq offered, other than military assistance. The Israeli government anticipated that Iraq’s missile launch sites and weapons of mass destruction capabilities would be targeted and destroyed by the U.S military effort. This was one of the key factors due to which Israel refrained from the direct retaliation.
The Gulf war had changed the degree of collaborations among both U.S and Israel. U.S authorities acknowledged that Israel’s restraint during the war was a major although passive contribution to the war effort. The two countries’ strategic partnership was further strengthened by this event, which paved the way for further collaborative defense efforts in the years after the war. Programs that had already been started including the Arrow Missile Defence system were expedited. To counter the increasing threat a long-range ballistic missiles, several projects were created such as the Airborne Laser (ALB) and Boost Phase Intercept (BPI) systems.
Relationship between the United States and Israel underwent an enormous shift in the years 1990-1991. Israel’s caution was essential in preserving regional peace during gulf war, which highlighted the two countries strategic alliance. This illustrated to the United States the value of both military assistance and diplomatic involvement in building a trustworthy and mutually productive partnership. [6]
Three characteristic defined the alliance at the conclusion of this time which includes
- Mutual security goals and shared threat assessments
- Institutionalization of the partnership and the consequent capacity to resolve short-term policy disputes in some domains
- Symmetry and load sharing, American regional goals supported by Israel in return.
These are the political military shifts in the US diplomatic relations with Israel after the end of cold war. [7]
Iran as mutual threat
U.S military and political diplomacy with Israel about Iran changed after the Gulf War in the early 1990s in response to growing regional concerns. These concerns included Iran’s development of missile capabilities, its quest for WMDs and its backing of terrorism was notable issues for both U.S and Israel. The focus and intensity of their separate policies however differed noticeably.
Diplomacy on military front
In response to Israel’s security worries over Iran’s missiles and WMDs program, the United States stepped up military cooperation. As part of this cooperative defense system like Arrow Missile Defence program were developed more quickly in order to combat long range missiles threats like Iran’s Shihab-3 and emerging Shihab-4 missiles. With their potential range these missiles can reach Saudi Arabia, Israel, American bases and Turkey. Intelligence sharing activities between the United States and Israel were also conducted to monitor and assess Iranian missile technology progress, specifically its collaborations with suppliers including china, North Korea and Russia. Moreover the United States leaders backed Israel’s development of cutting-edge defensive system, due to its location, aiming at strengthening its Qualitative Military Edge in the area. The United States dedication to protecting Israel from Iran’s existential threat while unfolding its own regional interests was demonstrated by these collaborations.
Diplomacy at political level
In order to counter Iran through a “dual containment policy” and steer clear of more extensive conflicts with nations like china and Russia that supports Iran’s weapons development, U.S political diplomacy adopted a dual strategy. For example in order to preserve its fragile relationship with post-soviet Yeltsin government the Clinton administration postponed taking actions against Russia exports of nuclear and missile technology to Iran. Likewise it steered clear of open conflicts with china on transfer of missile technology to Iran choosing instead to take a measured approach that did not interfere with ongoing US-china ties. On the other hand the Israeli government especially Benjamin Netanyahu and Yitzhak Rabin pressed U.S to adopt a more assertive posture towards Iran. Washington was urged to take more assertive measures against foreign support for Tehran’s WMD program after Israeli intelligence revealed proof of Iran’s increased missile development. Although Israel shared U.S’s views on board security issues, it was more emphasizing in highlighting the Iranian threat and urgency to respond to them. [8]
Challenges and deviations
During 1990s the U.S and Israel had showed divergence in perceptions according to Iran. The United States shown an increasing interest in investigating possible moderating groups within Iran but Israel consistently maintained a strong stance highlighting Iran’s existential threat. This distinction was brought to light in 1997 with the election of Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. In an effort to ease tensions and bring about long-term policy changes, the Clinton administration voiced cautions optimism about fostering communication with moderate Iranians. Israel was concerned about the positions because it continued to doubt Khatami ability to influence Iranian foreign policy and security policies. Israeli authorities were concerned that a closer relationship between united state and Iran may marginalize Israel’s security interest and leave it defenseless against Iranian attack. The U.S- Israel partnership remained solid in spite of these disagreements. American leaders have persisted in standing that good ties with Iran require the abandonment of WMD projects, hostility to Israel’s existence and to an end to support for terrorism. Israel was worried that these terms may loosen nevertheless in order to achieve temporary diplomatic gains between the United States and Ina. This period of US engagements with Israel include a strong military cooperation but divergent political stances. Both countries despite of these divergent political aims maintained strategic alliance and deepened their ties. [9]
US Diplomacy towards Israel Post India and Pakistan Nuclear Tests
U.S military and political diplomacy towards south Asia and Israel’s nuclear strategy were greatly impacted by the nuclear test carried out by India and Pakistan in 1998. These events highlighted how difficult it is for unite states to strike a balance between its boarder aim of global non-proliferation of nuclear arms and the special strategic alliances it has with Israel. The United States steps to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons actually pose huge concerns on Israel’s nuclear capabilities. This period also includes a diverging interest among both nations, which has also changed the course of military and political diplomacy of U.S towards Israel.
U.S response to nuclear tests
The international non-proliferation efforts were seriously undermined by the nuclear tests carried out by Pakistan and India. With the tests the two countries were officially recognized as nuclear powers and Israel was left behind as a threshold state, a nation with unclear nuclear capabilities. This increased raised question about Israel’s long standing nuclear opacity policy, which the U.S had implicitly accepted under 1969 unwritten agreement between Prime Minister Golda Meir and President Nixon. These nuclear tests held in South Asia prompted a complex response from U.S. These responses included
- Pressuring Pakistan and India to abide by the international non-proliferation agreements like Comprehensive test ban treaty
- Highlighting how curtail the Fissile Material Cut-Off treaty (FMCT) is as a tool for reducing the production of fissile materials worldwide.
These Reponses put indirect pressure on Israel too, and put their nuclear position in jeopardy and several challenges.
Fissile material cut-off treaty and American diplomacy towards Israel
The FMCT sought to stop the world’s manufacture of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. It was believed that the treaty’s ratification would strengthen the foundations for international non-proliferation. The agreement was controversial in U.S –Israel relations because of its impacts on Israel’s nuclear development. Israel views the FMCT with caution considering it a potential risk for their nuclear deterrence. Israel was dubious of the treaty’s ratification and their consequences for its strategic assets, even thought it was going to freeze the fissile material production in the whole region. Israeli officials were concerned that ratifying this treat would undermine their policy of ambiguity and make their nuclear installations vulnerable to outside scrutiny. The U.S on the other side was a long time supporter of the FMTC aimed to reach an international agreement in order to move the treaty’s discussions further. At the Conference on Disarmament, American diplomats stepped up their attempts to generate momentum for FMTC negotiations in the wake of the nuclear testing in South Asia. When the united sates pushed Israel to back the establishment of a negotiations committee for the FMTC in 1998, Israel was put in a challenging situation. After some hesitation the PM Benjamin Netanyahu administration opted not to impede agreement at the CD because it was occupied with regional and local issues. The united states exerted significant pressure on this decision but the Israel made it clear that this did not mean that FMCT was ratified and accepted in its eternity by Israel.[10]
The Arab Peace Imitative (API) 2002
Under the leadership of Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia the Arab Peace Initiative (API) was unveiled urging the 2002 Arab league meeting in Beirut. It offered a framework for all-encompassing peace that included the creation of Palestinian state, the formation of a reasonable solution for refugees and complete Arab recognition of Israel in return of Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries.[11] The API was embraced by U.S cautiously, acknowledging its potential for regional peace but concentrating more on bilateral Israeli-Palestinian discussion, notably as the roadmap for the peace introduced under President George W.Bush that year. The U.S unilateral piecemeal peace attempts over broader regional framework which contributed to its lack of traction. In short by focusing on its own unilateral peace initiatives such as the 2003 Roadmap for Peace the United States avoided forcing Israel to completely accept the conditions of API especially the recognition of pre 1967 borders and Palestinian refugees. Throughout the second intifada started in 2000, the U.S remained focused on Israel’s security requirements and matched the API’s tenets with current peace initiatives backed by the United States. The U.S did not completely accept the API as a main framework although applauding its potential to bring Arab worked together for peace. This was partially because of Israeli opposition and the more general geopolitical issues such as Iraq war and the post-9/ 11 counterterrorism focus. Thus API field to gain traction due to US minimal involvement and Israel’s rejection towards demand son refugees. In this way the US during this period had a cautious diplomacy towards Israel. [12]
The Lebanon war 2006
The goal of U.S political and military diplomacy during 2006 Lebanon war was to balance its strategic partnership with Israel along with addressing the boarder regional dynamic which includes Hezbollah and Lebanon. Hezbollah had attacked Israel from cross borders and carpeted Israeli troops, the United States backed Israel’s right to self defense. Supporting Israel’s military actions and providing precision guided ammunition to strengthen its war against Hezbollah were two examples of this. The United States attempted to control regional and global criticism of humanitarian cost of the fight simultaneously. The U.S was instrumental in the diplomatic process via United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which called to disarming of the Hezbollah, the deployment of the Lebanese armed forced in the Southern Lebanon and an increased presence of UNIFIL. This resolution was political diplomatic move by U.S for Israel and its own interests in Middle East. The U.S did not put pressure on Israel to end the operation, which indicates U.S shared Israeli security concerns and saw Hezbollah as an Iranian proxy. The United States also underlined the necessity of bolstering Lebanese sovereignty In order to stop Hezbollah from using its territory against Israel. Supporting the Lebanese government internationally and limiting funding for Hezbollah were evident examples of U.S diplomatic support for Israel. This had lead to huge criticism over U.S actions, due to misconduct of war and massive civilian casualties. [13]
Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009)
Operation Cast Lead was a military response in the Gaza strip that Israel began in December 2008 with the goal of stopping missile firing from Hamas. Significant losses especially among Palestinian civilians and extensive devastation in Gaza were results of that operation.
The Bush administrations emphasized Israel’s need to defend its civilian’s ad territory from Hamas attacks and forcefully backed Israel to self defense. However in the huge troll of civilian casualties in Gaza resulted in international denouncing of the situation. Due to a huge pressure from international humanitarian organizations U.S officials called for cease fire but there was no direct pressure on Israel to suspend the military activities had noted which indicates the country’s strategic goal of preserving close ties with Israel while striking a balance with international normal of human rights.
Operation Protective Edge
The IDF has started the operation protective edge in July 2014, which aims to stop Hamas to launch rocket attacks on Israel, by destroying their capabilities. Again Gaza suffered extensive damage and thousands of Palestinian causalities occurred due to this operation. [14]
The Obama administration had called for moderation to reduce the civilian losses while reaffirming its support for Israel’s right to self-defense against hams. The United States was crucial in bringing about ceasefire by using regional middlemen like Qatar and Egypt. In addition to supporting Israel’s security requirement the Obama administration urged Israel’s to bring back its military operations to prevent upsetting its abroad and exacerbating the humanitarian situation.[15]
U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital (2017)
President Donald Trump said in December 2017 that United States will relocated its embassy to Jerusalem and formally recognize it as Israel’s capital. Palestine and a large portion of the international community strongly condemned this decision. , which overturned decades of U.S policy and was seen as a major blow to the two state solution presented by Obama’s administration. The trump administration’s audacious diplomatic decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israeli capital improved ties between both the U.S and Israel. This move however was quite contentious due to its undermining nature of two state solutions. The U.S faced criticism from several of its allies particularly form Middle East, when the action provoked demonstrations and bloodshed in Gaza and west bank. Israel benefited from this diplomatic move but Palestinian leaders strongly objected making it more difficult for the U.S to serve as an unbiased mediator in peace talks. During this situation U.S policy faces complexity due to opposing goals of maintain strategic interest with Israel and addressing humanitarian crisis.
Abraham Accords 2020
An essential point in Arab-Israel relations was the 2002 Abraham Accords, which were made possible by Trump administration. The United State sought to promote regional stability and offset Iran’s influence by mediating normalization agreements between Israel and Arab countries such as United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Securing these accords required initiatives like economic help and arms purchases. Although the accords were hailed as a diplomatic victory they were criticized for ignoring the Israel-Palestinian conflict and failing to address the long standing problem that is still crucial to regional peace.
Tensions of 2021
Tensions in east Jerusalem intensified into bloody conflict between Israel and Hamas during the Gaza conflict of 2021. The Biden administration promoted actions promoted to safeguard civilian lives restating Israel’s right to self-defense. Temporary ceasefire and promises of humanitarian help for Gaza were the outcomes of diplomatic efforts which include contact with Egypt and Qatar. However the U.S was criticized again for failing to address the humanitarian toll and reevaluate its military aid policy especially by progressive senators
Analysis of the U.S response since 1990
U.S. military and political diplomacy towards Israel has been marked by steadfast support during the 1990s, but it has been moderated by regional dynamics and strategic concerns. The United States enabled important accords such as the Oslo Accords in the post-Cold War era, which advanced Israeli-Palestinian discussions but failed to settle fundamental issues. While underscoring the difficulties in preventing civilian casualties, the Second Intifada and later regional wars, such the 2006 Lebanon War, strengthened US support for Israel’s security. Although they failed to gain momentum, the Bush administration’s initiatives, such as the “Roadmap for Peace,” indicated attempts to strike a balance between bilateral and international methods.
Obama brought both political and strategic continuity to the U.S.-Israel relationship, particularly in respect to the Iran nuclear deal and settlement development. By recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Abraham Accords, which normalized Israel’s ties with a number of Arab governments while ignoring the Palestinian issue, the Trump administration, on the other hand, cemented this partnership. Recent crises that the Biden administration has had to deal with include the Gaza Conflict in 2021 and the Hamas attack in 2023, highlighting Israel’s right to self-defense while juggling difficult humanitarian issues. Throughout, the United States has struggled to strike a balance between the pursuit of stability and lasting peace in the area and its unwavering military backing for Israel.
The Hamas strike on Israel on October 7, 2023, was a previously unheard-of escalation in the area. The Biden administration responded by promising Israel urgent and steadfast support, including more munitions, weaponry, and missile defense systems. To prevent Hezbollah or Iran from escalating further, U.S. Navy attack groups were sent in. In terms of politics, the United States backed Israel’s right to self-defense while cautioning that civilian casualties in Gaza should be kept to a minimum. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s high-level diplomatic travels included requests for humanitarian pauses to let assistance to enter Gaza in an effort to manage the humanitarian situation. However, criticism grew both domestically and internationally, with humanitarian organizations denouncing civilian deaths and charging the United States with allowing Israel’s military activities without enough responsibility. The continuous veto over the decision of ceasefire further highlights U.S open support for Israel. Israel has extended its war to neighboring states, including Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and Syria. It has been conducting operations and killing leaders of proxy groups beyond the borders of Israel. U.S is supporting Israel both militarily and politically, claiming other parties terrorist and justifying its war crimes and acts as just, and their right for self defense. Recently they had called the decision of ICC to arrest Netanyahu as biased. Their firm support for Israel is weakening the international organizational bodies and collaborations.
Graph showing U.S military aid to Israel
The U.S military aid to Israel intensified with the operations it had been conducting in Gaza and against the proxy groups. Here is a map showing U.S military aid to Israel, which has been multiplied during its invasion of Gaza since October, 2023.
Conclusion
In a net shell, despite adjusting to changing regional and international circumstances, U.S. political and military diplomacy towards Israel since 1990 has continuously placed Israel’s security first. Although early attempts to mediate long-term solutions, such as the Oslo Accords and later peace initiatives, were notable, their effectiveness has been constrained by unsolved fundamental difficulties. Significant military and diplomatic support has been provided by the United States throughout times of war, such as the Second Intifada, the 2006 Lebanon War, and operations in Gaza. But criticism of civilian casualties and humanitarian issues has frequently dampened this backing. The October 2023 Hamas attack marked a dramatic increase in Israeli military actions in Gaza, and the U.S. now confronts additional obstacles in this regard. The Biden administration has reaffirmed its commitment to Israel, offering cutting-edge military assistance and bolstering military presence in the region to prevent more instability. Simultaneously, it is under increasing pressure from both local and international sources to handle the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and promote ceasefire. This dual focus highlights the difficulty of U.S. diplomacy: balancing growing aspirations for greater peace and stability in a region broken by long-standing conflicts while upholding a strong relationship with Israel.
[1] “U.S. Relations with Israel,” United States Department of State (blog), accessed November 23, 2024, https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-israel-2/.
[2] “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations – Office of the Historian,” accessed November 23, 2024, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel.
[3] “Crs Repors Isreal Us Relations – Google Search,” accessed November 23, 2024, https://www.google.com/search?q=crs+repors+isreal+us+relations&oq=crs+repors+isreal+us+relations&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAHSAQsxNDQwMzlqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.
[4] “What If the US Didn’t Help Israel in the Yom Kippur War? | Responsible Statecraft,” accessed November 23, 2024, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/yom-kippur-war/.
[5] “Arrow (Israel) – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance,” accessed November 23, 2024, https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defense-systems/arrow-israel/.
[6] “Persian Gulf War | Summary, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, Syndrome, Map, & Facts | Britannica,” October 23, 2024, https://www.britannica.com/event/Persian-Gulf-War.
[7] “MERIA: Israel and the United States,” accessed November 23, 2024, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/meria/meria98_stg01.html.
[8] “Engaging Iran: A US Strategy: Survival: Vol 40 , No 3 – Get Access,” accessed November 24, 2024, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1093/survival/40.3.153.
[9] “MERIA: Israel and the United States.”
[10] “McGeorge Bundy, William J. Crowe Jr., Sidney D. Drell, Reducing Nuclear Danger: The Road Away from the Brink (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1993.
[11] E. C. F. Database, “Saudi (Arab) Peace Initiative (2002),” accessed November 24, 2024, https://ecf.org.il/issues/issue/167.
[12] “A Revived Arab Peace Initiative from Saudi Arabia Could Save the Middle East,” The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, February 7, 2024, https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/a-revived-arab-peace-initiative-from-saudi-arabia-could-save-the-middle-east/.
[13] “Israel’s 2006 War on Lebanon: Resolution 1701,” accessed November 24, 2024, https://www.dohainstitute.org/en/BooksAndJournals/Pages/israel-2006-war-on-lebanon-the-resolution-1701.aspx.
[15] “Israel/Palestine, Operation Protective Edge (Gaza, 13 June – 26 August 2014) | How Does Law Protect in War? – Online Casebook,” accessed November 24, 2024, https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/israelpalestine-operation-protective-edge-gaza-13-june-26-august-2014.