The United States and Israel
A study of attitude of the past five United State presidents toward Israel and the Middle East conflict
Author: Aida Sirmanshahi Supervisor: Manuela Nilsson
Examiner: Susanne Alldén Term: Spring 2020 Subject: Peace and Development
Level: C-level Course code: 2FU33E
Abstract
Throughout the past eighty years, the United States and Israel have had a close relationship.
This study aims to understand and define patterns of behavior from presidents of the United States in their relation with Israel. The understanding of national interest and underlying pat- terns of the United States policies is what inspired the approach of the study, leading to the subject of defining a pattern in behavior.
This study examines the relationship between Israel and the United States, focusing on one of the two actors, the United States, by looking at The United States presidencies following the end of the Cold War. By applying rational choice theory to secondary literature on the United State presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Don- ald J. Trump, the results presented that pattern has been present for many years. All presi- dents have taken their own approach on maintaining the social, military, economical, and po- litical relationship, however one president has deprived from the given pattern of putting the countries best interest at the core. Meaning that a deprivation of national interest has taken place. Leading to going against national interest in the region.
Keywords: Israel, United States, Palestine, the Middle East, rational choice, peace agree- ments
List of abbreviations
UN: United Nation
UNSC: United Nations Security council
JPMG: Joint Political-Military Group
PLO: Palestine Liberation Organization
IDF: Israeli Defense Forces
Table of content
Chapter one: Introduction 1
1.1. Research problem and relevance 2
1.2. Objective 3
1.3. Research questions 3
1.4. Disposition 3
Chapter two: Literature review 4
2.2. Summary of literature review 5
Chapter three: Analytical framework 6
3.1. Rational Choice Theory 6
3.2. Use of the framework 8
Chapter four: Methodology 8
4.1. Qualitative Case Study 8
4.2. Abduction 9
4.3. Data collection and source criticism 9
4.4. The reliability of the method, limitations and delimitations 10
4.4.1 Reliability and validity 11
4.5. Ethical Considerations 12
Chapter five: Findings 12
5.1. The peace process and The United States relationship with Israel from 1945-1990 12
5.2. The five presidents after the post-Cold War era 14
5.2.1. George H. W. Bush and his relation with Israel: 1989–1993 14
5.2.2. Bill Clinton and his relation with Israel: 1993–2001 15
5.2.3. George W. Bush and his relation with Israel: 2001–2009 18
5.2.4. Barack Obama and his relation with Israel: 2009–2017 20
5.2.5. Donald J. Trump and his relation with Israel: 2017- Present 22
Chapter 6: Analysis 24
6.1. The rationality of George H. W. Bush 25
6.2. The rationality of Bill Clinton 26
6.3. The rationality of George W. Bush 27
6.4. The rationality of Barack Obama 29
6.5. The rationality of Donald J. Trump 31
6.6. The rationality of the president of the United States of America 33
Chapter 7: Conclusion 34
References 37
Chapter one: Introduction
In post conflict, war and any violent environments achieving sustainable peace is not easy and many intra-state peace agreements relapse into violence and actors return to violence (Druckman & Wagner, 2016, s. 407). The number of protracted social conflicts in the world have posed a problem to regional peace and attracted much diplomatic attention over time. A good example of that is the situation in the Middle East and the conflict that has taken place for decades. According to the United Nations Peace Agreements Database, a total of 33 agre- ements have been signed between 1949 and 2014 concerning the Middle East conflict (Uni- ted Nations, 2020). In 1947 Palestine was divided into a Jewish and an Arabic part by the United Nations (UN). Before Palestine was divided, Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Em- pire, then the United Kingdom. To the Arab population who lived there, it was their home- land. However, The United Nations voted, 33-13, to divide Palestine into two political frac- tions. This resolution is now known as the Partition Plan. The fundament of the plan was that for the British to withdraw their forces over the course of a year. After the course took place the division of Palestine then followed. The Jewish community was given control of over 56 percent of the land while the Arab population of Palestine was allocated on 43 percent of the land (International Crisis Group, 2020).
Since 1948, Palestine has been a constant denominator as a major topic in regard to American politics. Under the 1948 presidential election, Jewish votes were important in this time for the then running president. Being that the Zionist movement, at times called Israel Lobby, was very well known after the United Nation's Partition Plan for Palestine. This lead to much support from the Jewish Americans. One candidate, Harry S. Truman’s, key advisers, mainly Clark Clifford, pushed Truman to stand firmly with the UN’s decision on the Partition Plan in order to win the votes of the Jewish-American population. As the days went by, the pressure on President Truman increased. He was urged to recognize the new Jewish State, while others would counsel against recognition, as it could jeopardize Americans access to oil. President Truman weighed personal, political and strategic concerns. On May 14th he acted and the
United States sent out a statement recognizing the new State of Israel (Schoenbaum, 1993, p.
40).
What has been seen from how the relationship between United States and Israel play out is that of an example from 1972. Being that the United States has veto power in the United Na- tions Security council (UNSC), in many cases has it been used in favor of Israel. In 1972 it was the fist time veto was ever used for the United States. The reasoning of using the veto was for a new policy to fight terrorism. The resolution was about backing Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Syria (Middle East Eye, 2017). This veto was followed by a repeated use of the veto in order to protect Israel from international sanctions and criticism (ibid). Since the commitment of the United States to the state of Israel in 1948, the relationship has been close between the two. Being that this has led to Israel always being able to count on the support.
No country has provided as much aid to Israel, both economic and military, as the United Sta- tes has (U.S Department of State, 2020).
1.1. Research problem and relevance
With all that has happened with the situation between the Middle East and the United States, it can be said that this is an interesting situation. The following feud between Iran and the United States, and going all the way back to the relationships with countries in the region be- ing shaky after the 9/11 attacks. Leading to thoughts spark on why the United States gives Israel unconditional military, economic and political support. Being that this relationship has been an existing debate, there is abundant amount of studies and literature in this context of matter. Several scholars empathize and recognize this relationship. That saying, this rela- tionship the United States has with Israel and the actions taken in regard to how interrelates to the peace agreements has yet to be examined. So far in the current literature, the focus has been on the special relationship and the particular personal relationships between specific presidential dyads. However, what is missing is the potential link between the United States presidents relation with Israel and what patterns have followed under the years with the con- nection of the peace agreements.
The reasoning why this is both important and relevant is that understanding and defining this problem will give an insight on the special relationship, but in a different perspective. This study will add on to the understanding of how powerful actors’ choices is used in regard to international relations. Also the closer look at this issue will help define what the United Sta- tes interests are in the region and assist in clarifying the special relationship it shares with Is- rael. Being if there is also a link or not, having no link might actually be against the national interests of the country to be represented.
1.2. Objective
This study examines the relationship between Israel and the United States, focusing on one of the two actors, the United States, by looking at The United States presidencies following the end of the Cold War (George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump), and the efforts these presidents made to achieve peace in the Middle East, in order to find underlying patterns of The United States policies.
1.3. Research questions
In order to fulfill the objective of this study, the following research questions have been for- mulated:
• What pattern of behavior from the presidents of the United States has been detec- ted when looking at the relation with Israel?
1.4. Disposition
The thesis starts with the positioning of this study in relation to previous research that has been concluded when regarding the phenomenon to be able to understand and identify any knowledge gaps that are worth investigating. What follows is the presentation of the theoreti- cal framework as the study will embark from. The theoretical frame of reference includes the Rational Choice Theory. Continuing by trailing to this study's different method choices and approaches for managing the data material to answer the research question. The following section presents the accounting and analysis section, where the data material is presented.
The analysis section where the findings will be analyzed trough the rational choice perspecti-
ve. Finally, the study's results and reflections are summarized in the conclusion to present a summary of the results and what new knowledge has been identified.
Chapter two: Literature review
David Schoenbaum wrote about the history of the special relationship between the United States and Israel. Schoenbaum’s study was a historical overview about how that relationship grew and how it worked. The overview brought up the presidents of America from Truman to Bush. By following the Israeli-American relations from their roots in both American and Jewish experience, the study brings up the risks and opportunities of the peace process. Scho- enbaum (1993) argues that the U.S.-Israeli relationship always have been complex and even difficult to manage, making it a unique international affair. In the summary of Schoenbaum’s study, he states that much goes in for to this special relationship to work. What his study showed is that values, interests, politics and strategy are needed for the relation to work. Wit- hout these factors the current relationship would not work in the long run (Schoenbaum, 1993).
James Petras (2006) shows another perspective on how the phenomenon can be seen. In Pet- ras (2006) study about the relationship, he takes up the documentation on the perspective on how Israel has an enormous influence on United States policy in the Middle East. Petras (2006) study focuses on Israel’s long-term goal for regional hegemony. Meaning that from his study, Israel uses the relationship with The United States by having leadership and domi- nance over the United States. That saying, Petras (2006) shows how Israel is able to assure the full and unconditional United States support, for all factors that Israel has on their agenda.
This is done by information Israel states they have and the suitability The United States has with Israel as an ally, which Israel fully is aware of that The United States wants suitability.
Petras (2006) follows with how Israel’s agenda can be harmful for the Unites States being the interest of war in Iraq, any future one against Iran if it’s undertaken, and the appalling and brutal subjugation and colonization of the Palestinian people that serves no interest for the United States whatever. This special relation in Petras (2006) study has put light on how this can be a one-sides alliance with the other-side using the want of suitability to their advantage (Petras, 2006).
In the most recent study, Robert O. Freedmans (2012) work contains essays from Israeli and North American scholars from a variety of political perspectives. These essays include sub- jects on the principal political, religious, ethnic, military, economic, and juridical connections between the United States and Israel, with the aim of understanding the relation. This study is based on the statements from the United States’ presidents. His study brings up statements from the early 1940s up until the Obama administrations. In Freedmans (2012) study he talks about the Jewish community in America and its relations to Israel; military and economic ties between the United States and Israel; and the impact of Americans on Israel. The study sheds a light on understanding the past, present, and future of the United States and Israel relation- ship. In conclusion, Freeman (2012) outlines the extent of the relation in hand and how the relationship works in regard to politics with the strength of the relation being the core (Freedman, 2012).
2.2. Summary of literature review
The literature review indicates that there are a several explanations and perspectives to see this relationship by. While David Schoenbaum's (1993) study ”The United States and the sta- te of Israel” brought up how the relationship grew and how it works in regard to values, inte- rests and politics in perceptive from the earlier years. Robert O. Freedmans (2012) study ” Israel and The United States: Six Decades of US-Israeli Relations” on the other hand, as he states in the title, studies the relationship from six decades, from Trumans region until Oba- mas. These two studies indicate how, in the same case, one can identify that in the beginning, the relationship between the two states has been unconditional in regard to support. Both stu- dies have shown that values, interests and politics have been a pattern for the relationship to work. On the other hand, James Petras study ”The Power of Israel in the United
States” (2006) establish the view on the phenomenon from how Israel is using the situation for their own gain. Israel is able to assure the full and unconditional United States support, in a way that they have the United States wrapped around their finger. But what these studies has shown is the pattern of what they all have founded, and that is the support the United Sta- tes has given Israel and how the support has been there for many years.
Based on the compilation of the previous research, it appears that research on different per- spectives on the phenomenon exists. Thus, it is relevant to investigate this particular topic.
However, what can be see is that the debate about the relationship between the United States and Israel has been the main phenomenon in these following cases. But the relationship between Israel and the United States, from the American perspective, by looking at The Uni- ted States presidents following the end of the Cold War with the aim of finding a pattern of behavior from the presidents has played in with the peace agreements has not been indicated or addressed in the presented cases. There is little discussion on what the relationship
between the presidents of Americas relation with the peace agreements entail. Thus, one may ask what it all means. How does one conclude this ongoing discussion and understanding on the phenomenon? Seeing from the literature review, very little has been written on the debate from a peace agreement to relation from the following five American presidents. Therefore, an apparent research gap for this paper exists. Presented research will contribute to a broader perspective in order to answer the study's questions. This will be done by the previous rese- arch being used to analyze the material and produce explanations for the purpose and ques- tions of the study.
Chapter three: Analytical framework
3.1. Rational Choice Theory
International ’actors’, in this case the leaders of the United States, but also intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and multinational corporations, are based on individuals that make and act through own choices. Leading the interest to wanting to un- derstand how leaders and other important decision-makers make decisions. Rational choice theory is one attempt to explain how and why actors behave the way they do (Quackenbush, 2010, p. 89) . The theory was developed by Derek B. Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke in 1986.
The two major factors of the rational choice theory is that the choices individuals make is by (1) studying the consequences of crime against the benefits of crime prior to committing a crime and (2) select criminal behavior when the rewards offset the costs (Buskens, 2015).
What rational choice is essentially based on is implications of human behavior in political science contexts. How humans acts in social life in general, and how to explain actions in terms of rational choices of individuals. Social interaction, including international leaders in- teraction, can be seen as an exchange where individuals will interact with each other with the goal to gain from the interaction (Quackenbush, 2010, p. 88). Within rational choice, indivi- duals values, relationships, norms and other factors that are important are included in rational decisions. Using rational choice theory to examine and understand motivation and decision requires the starting point to understand that individual values (ibid, p. 89). Leading to that when using this theory to understand the presidents behavior, individual values and structural elements will be taken into account.
A central aspect for the theory is that individuals use rational calculations to make rational choices to achieve outcomes that are aligned with their own personal objectives. In general, it means that individuals act with the hope of the best possible outcome when he or she decides something, for example during international negotiations between international actors (Quac- kenbush, 2010, p. 88). Each individual, makes their choice based on their own preferences.
This theory will be used to understand how the choices of the leaders were made, and if the choice were rational in the case of if a pattern is present. However, rational choice theory has been widely criticized for its unrealistic assumptions and limited empirical validity. Being that the rational choice theory is essentially a theory about an assumption.
Quackenbush states that it is useful to consider the role of assumptions in theory. The goal of the rational choice theory is to explain and understand the world we live in. When regarding international leaders and their relationships, this theory can be seen is made to seek and un- derstand any number of questions dealing with the relations between actors on the internatio- nal factor. Explanation of these choices made then is accomplished through the theory (Quackenbush, 2010, s. 89). There are two types of assumptions. The first type is assump- tions that cannot be proven, meaning that that must be assumed. A second type of assumption is used to simplify reality in theory. The usefulness of assumptions is the empirical validity.
This approach is based on the assumptions the actors in this study make rational choices in an attempt to reach their most preferred outcome (Quackenbush, 2010, p. 90).
3.2. Use of the framework
The study's objective is to understand the pattern of behavior of choices American presidents have had in regard to the relationship with Israel and how that has impacted the peace agree- ments. The theoretical framework that has been selected is based on the study's objective. In this section, the use of the framework will summarized.
The theory will be used by the two major elements defined from Cornish and Clarke’s. Being that the major elementals of rational choice theory is that one studies the consequences and benefits of a choice, which then leads to choosing the choice that gives the most rewards.
From the choices of United States presidents, the case of studying the consequences created from the choices made will be intervened to create an understanding of the president’s choice and what outcome they wanted to avoid. In this case the first step for the presidents will be the preservation of national interests being the rational choice, and the second factor being the threat against national interests, meaning the rational route was not taken. However the rational choice will be defined in the findings, when a pattern is shown off what national inte- rests are. The rational choice and behavior will be defined as the protection of national inte- rests, prevention of punishment, which is not achieving the national interests.
Chapter four: Methodology
4.1. Qualitative Case Study
The chosen methodology for this research is to conduct a qualitative study with an abductive approach. This studies main methodological framework will be done from a process tracing method. Process tracing involves an in-depth analysis of a single case. For this thesis a pat- tern of behavior from the presidents of the United States is the case. Process tracing method gives a greater understanding of outcomes on how a specific cause led to a given outcome within a case (Beach & Pedersen, 2011). In this specific method, the outcome is present as the existing relationship, however the cause, being the pattern of behavior, is what is interes- ting and the objective of the thesis to understand. But to understand this behavior of pattern and the process of the cause, a text analysis will be done on relevant documents. This will
contribute to information and data on how the actions and choices of the presidents have looked after the Cold-War but also give an insight of the possible pattern.
In this research, a qualitative methodology was chosen over a quantitative one because in or- der to answer the research question, the role of the actions taken needs to be described and explained and this cannot be done with quantitative data. This method will enable the rese- arch and the researcher to make strong inferences about how a cause or causes contributes to producing an outcome (Bryman, 2016, p. 374). The choice of subject and the purpose of the study made it most appropriate to use a qualitative method. The qualitative data has the ad- vantage of elucidating norms and values in a more nuanced way than quantitative data such as statistics. The nuances are of the utmost importance for subcontracting mechanisms in so- ciety, such as power principles and decision making (Ahrne and Svensson, 2015, pp. 11-12).
The qualitative data also contribute to better conditions regarding understanding the per- spectives of vulnerable groups, life circumstances as well as understanding long-term histori- cal processes. Since the study intends to investigate a subject that is difficult to measure in exact figures, the quantitative method is inappropriate for this case study (Ahrne and Svens- son, 2015, p. 12).
4.2. Abduction
Being that this thesis objective is to analysis texts and finding arguments it is only logical to do this as a desk-study rather than as a field-study. That meaning an approach is needed to understand the material that is gathered. Abductive approach was chosen for this thesis since the main aim is to establish an understanding of the pattern of the relationship. The abductive approach can assist in translating the language and perspectives of the data to reach a theore- tical understanding. This means that the analytical framework was used to make sense of gat- hered data. Since this research does not aim to test any hypothesis or produce new theories, the abductive approach is the best approach to use (Bryman, 2016, 401).
4.3. Data collection and source criticism
The data for this thesis will be collected from the actions and choices the United States presi- dents have made in regard to Israel after the post-Cold War period. Data and information in
regard to the peace agreements that are connected to Israel and the United States, along with Trumps proposal, will be collected from the United Nations Peace Agreements Database and the White House Government website. This will result in knowledge about what the national interest has been, reveling a rational pattern through out the presidencies.
The action and choices that have been made by the president will be gathered by sources such as news sources and relatable literatures to gather presidents own statements, transcription of interviews, hearing and speeches. This study will also use one of the presidents social media.
However, being that this thesis uses online sources such as articles, the critical evaluation of a source must be in place. With the reasoning of understanding the sources credibility, purpose and origin. A critical approach is needed being that evaluation and interpretations of the sour- ces and publications is essential for the reliability of the thesis.
4.4. The reliability of the method, limitations and delimitations
This study will examine behavior and choices made by five of the United States of Americas presidents after the Cold-War in regard to the relation with Israel. The behavior and choices will be determined by efforts these presidents made to achieve peace in the Middle East. The reasoning being to find and see a pattern of the choices made regarding the achieving of pea- ce in the Middle East, The following research that will take place is delimited to George H.
W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump. The delimita- tion is due to the research objective, finding a pattern of America presidents, but also because of previous studies on the special relationship for The United States and Israel has already been done.
The delimitation for this thesis also represents certain restrictions. Limitations that will be a disadvantage of the following case study will be that this can become largely time consu- ming. Being that the context of actions and choices taken are going to be analyzed and under- stood, this will take time. Because most of the findings will be found on the internet, the risk that some statements might be falsified is ever present. Therefore, it is important to consider if this is an official statement, or if it has been fabricated. It is further important to present the findings, and analyzing the findings as unbiased as possible to minimize the risk of misinter-
pretation. Another factor that will follow if this is not done right is that the method can incre- ase the chance of error if the data in hand is interpreted wrongfully. Following with the fact that the use of biographies of the five presidents, diaries they have left, memoirs where they describe the relationship to Israel could also have been used as sources. Being that the time was a disadvantage, this became a limitation. That meaning the limitation in hand will be in mind before starting the research to achieve a complete and reliable study.
4.4.1 Reliability and validity
What makes this study truthful and transparent is the thesis reliability and validity. If the re- searcher's interpret the case in a wrongfully way, this would have had affected the thesis’s reliability. Reliability is a concept that refers to that the study's results can be reproduced by other researchers at other times (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009, p. 263). According to Bryman, validity and reliability do not play the same role on qualitative research as it does in quantita- tive (Bryman, 2016, p. 351). However, all studies in someway must be reliable. For a thesis to be reliable, it must be credible, transferable, and contain an opportunity to substantiate and confirm the results (ibid). The credibility that measures the thesis reliability can be measured by the language being adapted. Similar results should be reproducible if the study was redo- ne. Being that the thesis has also followed the research design according to recommendations in course literature with a motivated method choice, this study can be done again without ef- fort. The transferability of the thesis is included as it clearly addresses the context, which is to understand if a pattern is present in regard to the choices American presidents have made that interrelates to peace in the Middle East. The reliability of this thesis is also found in its trans- parency. This means that, as a researcher, you have addressed any shortcomings in the rese- arch, which guarantees reliability to the greatest extent. According to Ahrne and Svensson (2011), it is better to be honest and to identify possible shortcomings than to try to hide them (Ahrne and Svensson, 2015, p. 40). The aim of this study has been to be as objective as pos- sible, but it is aware that one's own understanding can affect the result, which has been taken accounted for. In this study, reliability is high and if this study would be researched again, one would presumably get a similar result.
However what also has affected the thesis reliability is the validity of the study. Validity is in the social sciences that one actually investigate what they intend to investigate (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009, p. 264). The research question and the data used were found to provide relevant answers for the theory used in the analysis, indicating validity. The study has also been delimited in order to reach a result that is useful. Without a boundary, it can be difficult to get a generalizable result.
4.5. Ethical Considerations
As this is a desk study based primarily on published secondary sources and peace agreement documents, ethical consideration will not be taken into account. Ethical consideration is mainly associated with field-studies, where data is collected by such as interviews and sur- veys.
Chapter five: Findings
5.1. The peace process and The United States relationship with Israel from 1945- 1990
Under World War II, the willpower to stop the Soviet threat could only be done by the United States, due to the fact that they were the only country that had the resources to do it. Between 1945 to 1991, the period of the Cold War, a policy was made to constrain the Soviet influ- ence. This led the Soviet Union to connect and influence with the Middle East. The influence lead to a strong connection with Israel, becoming a strong supporter. This resulted in other Arab states opposing the relationship, for many of the Arab countries this was seen as a new American colonialism (Reich, 1995, p. 389). Being that the United States wanted to contain the Soviet Union at all cost, strategies were made. These strategies tried to prevent any furt- her Soviet influence on the Middle East. The United States also wanted to maintain the access of regional oil with the goal to preserve the stability of the relation between the United States and the Middle East (ibid, p. 390).
The period between 1948 and 1967 can be seen as the period when not much support for Is- rael was shown for Americas side. President Truman’s decision to support Israel after becom- ing an independent state can be said was not a strategic decision. Many were against the
choice of supporting Israel. Being that many advisors feared that the access to Arab oil could become a hinder if one supported Israel. However, Truman gave in and supported Israel (Schoenbaum, 1993, p. 40). While the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration saw Israel as a nation that wanted violence, providing no support for Israel. Under this period the United States did not achieve any better relations with the Arab states (Puschel, 1992, pp. 11-12).
Between 1967 to 1973, there was an elevation in American interest of building a relationship with Israel, with the goal of making them a strategic partner. In the year of 1967, Israel defea- ted the Arab army, which sparked an interest for the United States (Nathanson and Mandel- baum, 2012, pp. 128-129). To show support to Israel and improve the relationship to Israel, the U.S. aid to the country increased with $510 million between 1970 to 1971 (ibid, 128).
However, Israel was still not seen as an asset to be used in the United States strategy, Israel was only seen at this point as an informant in the region. As the Soviet Union was still not backing down, the United States understood that they needed new allies in the Middle East to counter the Soviet-armed Arabs. This led to the strategic cooperation between The United States and Israel (Reich, 1995, p. 543).
Around the 1980s, the United States was trying to spread the word of the threat that the Sovi- et Union still exercised and how the region should stand together to stop them. However, that did not go as planned, being that little to no support was showed. This lead to The United Sta- tes turning to Israel for support (Reich, 1995, p. 628). After the Cold War ended, Ronald Re- agan, the president at the time, proposed a peace initiative, called the “fresh start” initiative, with the reasoning to bring the Arab states together. However, the peace talk failed, for seve- ral reasons. One of the resons was that Israel objected to the security issues that were stated.
That resulted in a reinforcement of the United States and Israel relationship (ibid, p. 593). In 1983, the National Security Directive 111 was signed between the United States and Israel, with the bases on the common threat of the Soviet Union. A Joint Political-Military Group (JPMG) was then formed the following year, which meant the both parties would meet twice a year and discuss military strategy and issues (ibid, p. 608).
5.2. The five presidents after the post-Cold War era
This following section will describe the continued strategic relation between the United Sta- tes and Israel. In the last section, data on how the relation between the two made sense under the years of the Cold war will be presented. Under the Reagan administration, the reasoning for the relation was the Soviet Union, explaining that any sort of alliance was a strategic asset against the Soviet threat. However, being that the Cold War is over, is Israel still needed as an asset? Actions and choices made by the presidents for the Middle East peace process will be brought up and how this played out for each of them.
5.2.1. George H. W. Bush and his relation with Israel: 1989–1993
George H.W Bush was the president that brought the United States into the post-Cold War era. Bush and his administration response to keep the alliance post-Cold War era was that the Soviet Union still was a threat. He continued with the statement that the United State was still not safe and other enemies were out there, followed that the defense budget was also now cut, help from foreign allies were needed in this time. Bush then went on to also stating that if the United State want to maintain stability, maintaining relationship with Israel is very smart, being that of the connection by having a strong ally in the Middle East (Puschel, 1992, pp.100-103). In the beginning of fall 1989, an agreement was signed by the United States.
This agreement consisted of an agreement that they would lend Israel supplies for military research (ibid, p. 106).
The relationship of President Bush and the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was tested when the Gulf War occurred in 1991. Under the Gulf War, Israel got plenty of threats.
During the war, Egypt and Syria, did not want Israel to get involved. Bush was made aware of this, pointing out to Iraq that the United States was an ally to Israel. However, Israel was still attacked by missiles launched by Iraq. This led to Israel wanting to attack back, but after Bush persuaded Prime Minister Shamir to back down by promising to share information on the American campaign. This was a moment that showed that the two parties could work to- gether towards a common goal (Puschel, 1992, pp.132-133)
After the Gulf War, the relationship between The United States and Israel got closer. In be- ginning of May, the Bush administration made an agreement that included more military funds to Israel (Puschel, 1992, pp.145-146). Following after the agreement and the end of the Gulf war, the United States started taking action on the Middle East peace process. Bush wanted to influence sustainable peace between Israel and other regions, where peace was not present. Another goal Bush wanted to achieve was to promote regional stability of oil access in the Persian Gulf. Under the Bush administration the thought of ending the Israeli-Palesti- nian conflict would help stabilize the oil access (Reich, 1995, p. 643). However, even though the relation between the States and Israel was better, differences emerged. Financial issues arose for America leading to delayed payments to Israel. This downfall of a relationship was clear when Bush postponed the regular session of the JPMG that was going to take place in September 1990 (Puschel, 1992, pp.145-146).
Even in doubt, Bush did his contribution to increase the relationship between the United Sta- tes and Israel. Bush was present at The Madrid Conference on 1991. This peace conference was held from the 30th of October to the 1st of November in Madrid. The conference was held by Spain and co-sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union. The aim of the peace conference was to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine. Plenty of Arab countries was also present such as Jordan, Lebanon and Syria (Historian, 2020). Before the conference took place, it all began with President Bush on March 6, 1991, with his statement to the Congress: ”The time has come to put an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”, leading to the preparation soon after. Those who attended marked a historically unprecedented event, being that all of the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict had gathered to negotiate (ibid). The Bush administration hoped that this conference would follow with long-term impact, but that was not the case. With the ending of the negations on the 4th of November 1991, many of the parties present stuck with traditional positions, leading to no serious negotiations made (ibid).
5.2.2. Bill Clinton and his relation with Israel: 1993–2001
When Bill Clinton became the president he pursued the peace process in the Middle East. But the relationship became more personal when Yitzhak Rabin became prime minister in Israel, being that Rabin was the first of the Israeli administration willingly wanting to negotiate pea-
ce (Lewis, 1999, p. 370) In October 1994 there was negotiations in Oslo with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO is an organization that was founded in 1964 with the objective to bring "Liberation of Palestine”. Though the PLO does this through armed struggle, with much of its violence aimed at Israeli civilians. The Oslo negotiations that took place between Israel and Palestine. The core aspect of the negation was that Israel should withdraw their military forces from Palestinian areas. With the encouragement from the Clin- ton administration for Israel to sign, Israel, Jordan and Palestine signed the peace treaty. Isra- el showing that they also wanted to negotiate peace, the relationship strengthened when the Clinton administration mediated peace negotiations between Israel and Syria. With Yitzhak Rabin showing interest, the relationship between the prime minister and president became stronger (Bar-Siman-Tov, 1998, p. 30).
What followed a year after, was the Treaty of Peace Between the state of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The core of the treaty was that to settle the relation between the two countries. This would also include adjusting the water and land disputes and corpora- tion when regarding trade. Negotiations began in 1994 with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin informing King Hussein that after the Oslo Accords with the PLO, Jordan might be left out. This led to Jordan wanting to talk, but not to signing anything. However, Clinton stepped in and pressured Hussein to start negotiating for peace and to sign a peace treaty with Israel.
President Clinton promised Hussein that if this is done all of Jordan's debts would be forgi- ven. This ultimately lead to Jordan signing the non-belligerency peace agreement with Israel and the Untied Sates (History, 2018).
In 1998, a speech given by President Clinton, he stated that he believed that it was beneficial for America to have the interest of making the relation with Israel stronger. This showed in the following years of his presidency that he followed up with what he said. Clinton approved the transfer of new technology, such as computers, with the goal to increase strategic cooper- ation. For strategic cooperation to increase, Clinton also gave Israel access to American mili- tary equipment and kept on funding Israel military projects. Rabin, the prime minister of Is- rael, gave in return Israeli military systems and joint exercises with American military and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) (Bar-Siman-Tov, 1998, pp. 28-29).
In October 1998 the Wye River Memorandum took place. The Wye River Memorandum was an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a summit in Wye Ri- ver, Maryland, U.S. This agreement can be seen as the second part of the Oslo Accord, being that the aim was to resume the implementation on the agreement of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The negotiation was led by President Clinton and signed by Benjamin
Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat. The core of this agreement was security actions. Palestine agreed to measure to prevent terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against the Israeli side, while Israel agreed on the same. For this to take place that both sides must implement the transfer of the parties’ individuals from the areas under a specific time line. This then led to the backfire on Israel side, being that the only had implemented one stage of the further re- deployment, leading to more conflict and accusations from both sides, following with the agreement remaining unfinished (United Nation, 1998).
The following peace agreement took then place in 2000, The Camp David Summit, which was a meeting between President Clinton, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat, was an effort to end the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Clin- ton announced the invitation to Barak and Arafat to come to Camp David to continue their negotiations on the Middle East peace process. Clinton went with an all-or-nothing approach, with the proposals made only being verbal. No agreement was reached after this meeting, meaning there is no official written record of the proposals. The talks failed to reach a status on an agreement on the final issues regarding territory (Pressman, 2003, p. 14).
After the failure at the 2000 Camp David Summit, President Bill Clinton went later on ma- king guidelines for a permanent status agreement to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
The permanent was what Clinton believed to be the best way to margin the position of both parties, making them a bases for further negotiations. Both parties accepted the plan, but with reservations. The core of the permanent was a Palestinian State with the inclusion of 94-96%
of the West bank. Israel would gain sovereignty over the Wester Wall. Both sides would agree that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 has been implemented, returning refu- gees to their home. Israel Defense Forces would withdraw within 36 months and gradually be replaced by an international force. Palestinian state would gain sovereignty over its own air-
space, with special reservations for Israeli training and operational needs. In the event of a military threat to Israel's national security requiring a state of emergency, Israel would be al- lowed to deploy military forces to certain areas and routes, according to a pre-drawn map.
International forces would have to be notified prior to any such deployments (Resolution 194).
What took place after, around the end of President Clintons region, was the Taba Summit were Israel and Palestinians Authorities talked with the aim to enhance the final status of the negotiations to end the conflict. However nothing came from the summit being that Prime Minister Ehud Barak terminated the talks due to the Israel election, Ariel Sharon the new prime minister did not restart them. The summit however was hosted by President Clinton, were he also presented the ”Clinton Parameters”. Both sides had agreed upon Clinton's pro- posal on territory, the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and refugees. However, security and the West bank was an issue (The Jewish Peace Lobby, 2020).
5.2.3. George W. Bush and his relation with Israel: 2001–2009
George W. Bush saw Israel as a country that wanted peace, and did all they could to achieve peace, but in exchange for everything Israel did they were only met with violence back. Be- ing that the United States was involved with the peace process between Israel and Palestine, Bush was present at the Taba Summit. The Taba Summit was were Israel and Palestinian ne- gotiated with the aim to end the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This took place in one whole week in January 2001. Under this time President Bush felt disappointed by Yasser Arafat, who was the Palestinian President at that time. Bush felt that Arafat at that time did not want peace. This led to President Bush disengaging from any further peace agreements that regar- ded Israeli–Palestinian in his first two years as president (ECF, n.d).
When the attack on the World Trade Center happened on the 11th of September, 2011, Bush looked too Israel as an ally against the foe they now both had, the terrorists. Under this time Israel was about to launch an attack at Palestine, but Bush stopped Ariel Sharon, Israel’s Pri- me Minister at that time, after an urge from his administration (ECF, n.d). Under the same year, the Bush administration was forming an anti-Iran alliance. With Sharon sharing infor-
mation on how they wanted to weaken Iran’s power, another common denominator was founded (Inbar, 2009, p. 39). During the Bush administration, the first Juniper Cobra was conducted. Juniper Cobra was a five-day military exercise between Israel and the United Sta- tes. The goal of the exercise was to strengthen American-Israeli military cooperation against regional threats. This followed with many other military exercises to take place under the Bush administration (ibid, pp. 44-45). With the attack that took place in September 2001, President Bush made the decision increased homeland security. The changes Bush had made was aided by Israel. Being that Israel was one of many states that had experience on this mat- ter, Israel shared plenty of information regarding their security knowledge (ibid).
In 2002, the Arab Peace Initiative took place which was a 10-sentence proposal to end the Arab and Israel Conflict. The initiative was met from an enthusiastic President Bush. The President praised the ideas regarding the Arab-Israeli normalization once a comprehensive peace agreement has been reached. However, Bush stated that this could only happen when the end of terrorist attack against Israel stops (Siegman, 2016). The first main plan to resolve the Israeli and Palestinian conflict for President Bush was the Roadmap for peace. This peace plan was proposed by the Quartet, which consists of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. The Quartet on the Middle East are the four who have the goal of mediating peace between Israel and Palestinian. The outline of the plan was for an independent Palestinian State living side by side with Israel in peace. This plan required both sides to end violence and create conditions for peace to become sustainable. This required Israel to dismantle all Israeli colonies that were built in Palestinian and Palestinian leaders to stop the terrorism. President Bush found that this plan, which was developed by him, would
"bring an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories that began in 1967”, but also create "an independent, democratic Palestinian State living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.”(Bureau of Public affairs, 2003).
As the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap, was also divided into phases. With changes made for Is- raeli demands the Roadmap would only go forward with Yasser Arafat out of the picture. This was a demand from Israel and the United States, leading to the United States refusing to rele- ase the Roadmap until the end of Arafat regime. With the Roadmap released in 2003, the way
to peace was finally on track. Under 2003 after the release of the Roadmap, President Bush paid a visit to Middle east for two summits to push more on the roadmap. Many showed commitment, such as Israel freeing 100 Palestinian prisoner. However, when Bush left, the violence resumed. In the end the Roadmap hit a deadlock (The Guardian, 2011). With the end of President Bush's in office in 2009, the Roadmap became forgotten.
In 2003, the Geneva Initiative took place to end the Israeli and Palestine conflict. The bases of this initiative was taken from previous official negotiations, such as the Quartet
Roadmap, the Clinton Parameters, and the Arab Peace Initiative. The Geneva Initiative had much similarities with the 2000 Camp David Summit and Taba Summit proposals. The core of the plan was to give Palestinian almost all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and Israel would get what they prior had control of in the six day war in 1967. Such as previous agree- ments main aspects brought up was that of refugees, borders and territory, Jerusalem and in- ternational supervision (Geneva Accord, 2020). President Bush would support this, however he stated ”The Initiative is productive, so long as they adhere to the principles to fight off ter- ror, that there must be security, and there must be the emergence of a Palestinian State that is democratic and free.” (Guttman, 2003)
5.2.4. Barack Obama and his relation with Israel: 2009–2017
When President Barack Obama stepped into office, he made the choice of changing the rela- tionship with Israel. While George W. Bush saw Israel as a country that was a great ally for America, Obama went with another route in regard to the relationship. Obama and his admi- nistration chose the route of balancing out the relationship with the Middle East and not ha- ving favorites. In Obamas eyes, a more balanced relationship from the United States side Is- rael and Palestine would be able to produce a peace settlement. Being that he also wanted to reach out to other Middle Eastern states, a back-up plan was also set in place. If President Ba- rack Obama’s efforts of building a relationship with other Muslim countries failed, his hope was on the Israel and Palestine peace settlement (Freedman, 2012, p. 57).
The personal relation President Obama had with the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was very tense. The reasoning behind this is Obama being liberal while Netanyahu lead Israel
with a right-wing government (Freedman, 2012, p. 59). However, the rift in the relationship changed in March of 2013 when members of Congress became weary of the state of the rela- tionship. A letter was written for President Obama by three hundred Congress members.
What was stated in the letter was that ”highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests that the United States and Israel share. //… A strong Israel is an asset to the national security and brings stability to the Middle East” (ibid, 62). After a few months, President Obama realized that with a bad relationship between Israel, the peace process would not make any progress. It is unclear if the choice was made because of the Congress letter. This followed with Obama improving the relationship with Israel. This improved rela- tionship included talks with the Israel Prime minister, even with the forced smiles and laughs, the effort was there. President Obama tried to mend the relationship further by giving a $250 million aid to Israel to fund different projects in regard to security and military (ibid p. 64).
The mending of the relationship had its ups and down, with President Obama declaring in September 2011 that the United States would veto any Palestinian application for statehood at the United Nations, which did not make Israel happy being that this was the first time in many years that the United States did not back Israel. President Obama stated "there can be no shortcut to peace”. However, in 2012 President Obama signed into law a bill that would extend by another three years the program of United States guarantees for Israeli government debt. Under his presidency he wanted to find the balance of the two, to be able to achieve a peace process (Freedman, 2012, p. 70). Before President Obama’s last years of presidency, he visited Prime Minister Netanyahu in September 2016. This encounter was one of many very tense and forced talks. The two have had a rollercoaster of a conflict under the years. But the conflict between the two did not end there. In December 2016, a few months after, President Obama made the choice of not blocking the United Nation resolution on Israel when regar- ding discipline or not for what Israel has done. For Netanyahu was this the last straw for so- meone who was supposed to be an ally (Backer, 2016).
What followed was more of a downfall on the relationship. Obama stated that he would not veto the resolution, as presidents of both parties have done in the past. Netanyahu on the oth- er hand expressed anger at Obama, blaming him for the problems in hand and that Obama
was having secret meetings with Palestinian, making this an unknown backstab. Many repub- licans criticized Obama of this choice and many others, such as President-elect Donald J.
Trump (Backer, 2016). Throughout the years, American presidents have been hands on when regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine, being that these two parties have huge differences. But both Israel and Palestine can agree that President Obama had let them down (ibid).
However, direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority started taking place in September 2010 as part of the peace process. The negotiations were between President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority
Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. The purpose of the talk was to negotiate between Israelis and Palestinians with the intent to resolve all final status issues. The goal was a settlement negoti- ated between the parties that ended the occupation which began in 1967. With the aim to have the results in the emergence of an independent democratic and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish State of Israel and its other neighbors. Presi- dent Obama said that this was in national interests of all regions to be involved. However, none of the efforts made by different the three sides over the rest of the year were able to bring the three parties back to the negotiation table (Remnick, 2016).
5.2.5. Donald J. Trump and his relation with Israel: 2017- Present
President Donald J. Trump was very vocal on his criticism against his predecessor Obama on how he handled the alliance with Israel (Backer, 2016). Under the years for Israeli Prime Mi- nisters, many have faced legal trouble, making it difficult to find support from home and ab- road. But all this has since now changed, being that Prime Minister Netanyahu has found an individual with similar mindset, Donald J. Trump. This relationship started with tips and con- versations. From then on, the relation of the two bloomed (Remnick, 2019).
In 2017, President Trump made his first trip abroad and made a stop in Israel. Trump has tak- en many steps after that to get on Netanyahu’s good side (Remnick, 2019). From pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal to moving the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Trump also announced the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (Proclamation
9683, 2017). While Trump goes beyond others for Israel, Netanyahu has tried to capitalize on the relation with President Trump. This has been done by honoring the United States presi- dent with "Trump Heights”. Trump Heights is a planned Israeli settlement in the Israeli-occu- pied Golan Heights (Hjelmgaard, 2019).
With social media at its peak with the regime of Trump, the president has used the media of Twitter to reach out to many of his followers. With 78.7 million followers, Trump has ”twee- ted out” several tweets on his support of the relation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This has also been shown from Netanyahu’s own twitter. The twitter platform has shown from both sides of updates on calls that have been made such as ”discuss the possibility of moving forward with a Mutual Defense Treaty, between the United States and Israel…” From Presi- dent Trump’s twitter (Trump, 2019). The following on social media has shown great respect that both parts have for one another, with updates on future plans, meetings, calls, and praise.
What also turned heads for many was in March 2019, when the United States recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel. This recognition was done by a presidential proclamation signed by the United States president Trump. This recognition made by Trump was the first for any country, other than Israel themselves, to recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli, than it belonging to Syria (Remnick, 2019).
On January 28, President Trump proposed a peace plan, Peace to Prosperity, to resolve the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. The plan was unveiled in the White House at a press confe- rence with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. However, a Palestinian representative was not invited for the unveiling (DW, 2020). President Trump divided the plan into two parts. One part as an economic agreement and one as a political agreement. However, the plan was re- jected by the other parties with the reasoning of that the agreement is too biased in the favor of Israel. What can be seen from the plan is that the many harsh requirements on the Palesti- nians and few acknowledgments from Israel’s side (Heller & Lee. 2020). Palestinian Presi- dent Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the plan as “nonsense” and vowed to resist it. Netanyahu called it a “historic breakthrough” and also stated that this plan is great for Israel but also a great plan for peace (ibid).
Trumps peace plan includes a disjointed Palestinian State that turns over key parts of the West Bank to Israel. It sides with Israel on key contentious issues that have been a problem in past peace efforts, including borders and the status of Jerusalem and Jewish settlements, and attaches nearly impossible conditions for the Palestinians. The core of the agreement is 1) Israel keeps the vast majority of Jerusalem as its sovereign capital; 2) Palestinians get no right of return; 3) it redraws borders mainly between Israel and the West Bank; and 4) does not allow for Palestine to create a fighting force to defend itself (Peace to Prosperity, 2020).
With the vast majority of Jerusalem, Israel gets the entirety of an undivided Jerusalem as its capital. A future state of Palestine would get a few neighborhoods in far eastern Jerusalem.
What the plan also calls for is that there shall be no “right to return” for the millions of Pales- tinians forced out of their ancestral homes during the formation of the Israeli State. With the following of new borders to effectively give Israel more land in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank. Lastly, a future state of Palestine to basically never be able to secure itself. In the proposal it states “The State of Palestine will not have the right to forge military, intelligence or security agreements with any state or organization that adversely affect the State of Israel’s security, as determined by the State of Israel,”. Meaning Palestinian would not be able to cre- ate armed forces to protect itself (Ward, 2020).
What followed after a few months was the second part of the agreement, the economic por- tion of the peace plan. The economic plan was a vision that Trump present as a way for Pales- tinians to build a prosperous and vibrant Palestinian society. Trump stated that more than 50 billion dollars will be invested over a ten year period to build potential facilitate (Ward, 2020). Crucially, the plan lacked any details about a political solution to the Israeli-Palestin- ian conflict. Trump stated that the Trump Peace Plan had the goal to break the worn para- digms of past approaches. This is the deal of the century, a quote from Prime Minister Ne- tanyahu (Heller & Lee. 2020).
Chapter 6: Analysis
This chapter will examine how rational the relationship of The United States with Israel has been throughout the different presidents from Post-Cold War with a rational choice perspecti- ve. The pattern of behavior from the presidents of The United States will be analyzed from a
national interest perspective. The following presidents have shown distinct national interests concerning security and sustainable peace in the middle east. The findings have also shown that an alliance was present during the Cold War. However, in the post-Cold War period changes were made concerning the relationship. The relationship that was a counter to the Soviet threat was now based on working towards peace in the Middle East. In this chapter the finding will be analyzed trough the rational choice perspective by comparing them in terms of patterns in regard to national interest, efforts made by the presidents and how balanced was the peace.
6.1. The rationality of George H. W. Bush
George H. W. Bush was the first president after the Cold war. Bush and his administration decided that the relation with Israel was in the United States interest to continue on. President Bush saw the Soviet threat as an ongoing menace, followed by the relation with Israel to maintain regional stability in the Middle East. In the National Security Strategy Narratives President Bush determined< the United States’ interest in Israel as “the security of Israel and moderate Arab States as well as the free flow of oil”. This also followed with the interests in the Middle East that also was to ensure security for Israel (Washington, DC: The White House, 1990).
From a rational choice perspective President Bush saw this relation as a strategy against a threat. As rational choice theory is defined as an exchange where individuals will interact with each other if one’s gains outweigh the expected costs arising from the interaction
(Quackenbush, 2010, p. 88). In Presidents Bush’s case, the relation with Israel was of interest if the threat of the Soviet Union commenced anew. Together with other enemies and the cut of the defense budget at the time, allies were needed (Puschel, 1992, pp.100-103). This can be seen as to why ensuring security for Israel was in interest for President Bush, being that this choice can be seen as the best possible choice in the situation that could be made. With Bush and his administration increasing military agreements with Israel and stating that the relation would go on, shows the possibility that the belief of an outcome that was wanted would be the result from the relation. For Bush case, the belief can be seen as a sustainability of security by having Israel as an ally. However, even with the goal of having a sustainable
relation with Israel, financially the cost was too high, leading to the relation to have a slip un- der the Bush administration (ibid, pp.145-146).
With that said, President Bush still pursued to increase the relation with Israel. Being that no peace agreement was signed until the end of President Bush region, Bush was present at the Madrid Conference in 1990, with the goal of the peace conference to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine. With the efforts made from Bush, in regard to making rational choices for the best outcome, wanted to put an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict (Historian, 2020). Ho- wever, for Presidents Bush’s case, the relation did not give him the outcome that he was fully aiming for. Bush did not damage the relation and in some form followed the preservation of national interests, in this matter security and peace building in the Middle East, making the- ses choices made, as a national interest perspective, rational.
6.2. The rationality of Bill Clinton
When Bill Clinton became president, his goal was very clear from the beginning in regard to the Middle East peace process. Being that when Clinton was elected, at the same time a new Prime Minister was elected in Israel as well, Yitzhak Rabin. Prime Minister Rabin was the first minister willing to negotiate peace, what might be the reasoning of the rational choices Clinton made with all the efforts that followed. The choice of being as involved as Clinton was could be the background reasoning of Rabin being open to negotiation, leading Clinton to seeing the efforts made to something that might result to in a wanted outcome. For Clinton, the preservance national interests was important. In this case being, rational in the following choices made in regard to his behavior as president.
Quackenbush states that actors act rationally when rational information is present (Quacken- bush, 2010, p. 89). In Clinton’s case, what his predecessor Bush aimed at, in regard to that Bush was primarily impacted by the Cold War experiences and wanted a bulwark against a possible Soviet rise, Clinton pursued with the similar interests in mind. Clinton supported what he thought was going to achieve the peace that was wanted (Bar-Siman-Tov, 1998, p.
30). In this case, President Clinton saw that the relation with Israel along with his involve- ment of the peace process would give the maximum of advantages for his part, while the op-
posite would give him minimum value (Quackenbush, 2010, p. 89). The perspective of ratio- nal choice also is based upon actors achieving the very best results for themselves and their own self-interest (ibid). One can interpret the choices made from Clinton and all that he per- suaded was for the reason of the outcome in Clinton's interests. However, even with all the effort made, no change took place in regard to peace in the Middle East. With that said, the findings have shown that President Clinton was the only president that made the most effort regarding the following agreements, and also tried to please both sides, with the permanent status agreement as an example to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The national inte- rest for Clinton was to achieve peace in the Middle East but to also have Israel as an ally can be interpreted from all that Clinton did for Israel, in regard to aid, however this can also be seen as a way to get on Israels good side to give a better chance to achieving peace in the Middle East.
Clinton was very rational in regard to how balanced his goal of peace was, and how he wan- ted to please both sides. Both sides had agreed upon Clinton's proposal on territory, the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and refugees. However, security and the West bank was an issue (The Jewish Peace Lobby, 2000). Whit the issues that aroused, nothing changed from the situation in hand. President Clinton, from a rational perspective, saw that the goal of a stable Middle East was in interest, but to achieve the interest in a rational way peace was needed between Israel and the Palestinians. For Clinton the rational calculations to make the rational choices that he made was aligned with his and the United States’ best interests, in this case having sustainab- le peace in the Middle East. But the choices made from President Clinton can be seen as the reasoning that a strong relationship with Israel was present and that Israel was also interested to achieve peace. Without the relation with Israel, one can interpret that Clintons efforts would not have been as affected, even if his efforts did not make a huge change, it was a step in the right direction.
6.3. The rationality of George W. Bush
When George W. Bush became president, the mindset of peace in the Middle East was pre- sent. Being that the rational choice in his position was that of having peace in the Middle east was in the United States national interest, from the pattern that is present for the following
Presidents before. However, Bush favored Israel, finding them as the country who wanted to achieve peace while Palestine was the enemy. An example of President Bush following the pattern that has been seen as the rational choice is that of when the president praised the ideas regarding the Arab-Israeli normalization once a comprehensive peace agreement had been reached. But this followed with Bush stating that this could only happen when terrorist at- tacks against Israel stopped, showing that the choice of Israel’s security was in interest for Bush (Siegman, 2016). This can be interpreted as the reasoning of the relationship is a ratio- nal choice for Bush, since the relation with Israel gave Bush the outcome that he had interests in.
For Bush, the relation with Israel can also be seen as a matter of self-interest, which is an aspect in rational choice to take the route that gives the outcome of ones self-interest (Quac- kenbush, 2010, p. 90). When the 9/11 attack took place, Bush looked to Israel as an ally against the foe they now both had, terrorists. With Israel having dealt with terrorists before, the alliance can be interpreted as a choice that gave Bush the security and advantage in the situation. As Israel at this time was just about to launch an attack Palestine, Bush stepped in and made the rational choice to stop this. This can be interpreted as Bush showing the beha- vior of national interest of having a sustainable Middle East, being that this is a beneficial choice for the United States.
Under Bush presidency, peace agreements were proposed, and some came a long way to ac- hieve peace. For many of the agreements proposed and made, they all were rational and well balanced in regard to stop the violence and create conditions for peace to become sustainable.
Bush wanted to end the Palestine terrorism and have an independent democratic Palestine State. But at the beginning of Bush presidency, he was not fond of Yasser Arafat, which made Bush step back from the agreements for two years (ECF, n.d). This can be seen as Bush who made the choice of stepping back personal, making the choice out of self-interest. However, this can also be seen as a rational choice for Bush, being that for him stepping back from the agreements, with a possible reasoning that he saw the peace agreements not going anywhere.
Instea, Bush worked on the relation with Israel. However, even with Arafat stepping down, nothing changed in the matter in regards to the agreements, as shown from the findings.
