Israel is an independent country, and as an independent country, it has the right to make decisions that limit its freedom of action in certain areas. The decision that has always been the basis of its foreign and defense policy - that policies should be coordinated with the United States - is one such decision. This is a correct decision, because doing otherwise could cause us serious, if not existential, harm. But in fact, contrary to what is argued by critics from the left, no real sacrifices are demanded of us as a result of coordinating policy with the U.S. What, after all, are we being asked to do?

- Boycott Hamas, or any government in which it participates, as long as it does not adhere to the Quartet's three principles (recognizing Israel's right to exist, accepting previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements and abjuring terror). Is there any point in any other policy? Day and night, Hamas declares that it will never recognize Israel's right to exist, conducts a terror war against it and even conditions a proposed 10-year truce on impossible conditions (withdrawal to the 1967 borders, freedom of action for Hamas in Jerusalem and immediate action to solve the refugee problem). Even if the "moderate" faction of Hamas would like to reach some sort of temporary agreement with Israel, it is clear that Iran and Syria would thwart it; both countries have the desire and the ability to do this. From Israel's perspective, there is nothing to hope for from Hamas as long as it persists in these positions.

- Stick to the American-sponsored road map. As long as there is no other plan that can realistically promise progress toward a final-status solution, an interim agreement or a truce under acceptable conditions, with a Palestinian government that recognizes Israel, there is no point in abandoning the road map, about which there is a broad consensus. If and when an alternative plan exists, there is no doubt that the U.S. will be a partner to it, together with Israel.

	Advertisement

- Do not open negotiations with Syria. If Syrian President Bashar Assad seriously intends to negotiate without prior conditions (and not "from the point that was reached in previous negotiations"), then it is within his power to make a small gesture that would calm the suspicious - not coming to Jerusalem, of course, but declaring his readiness to meet with an Israeli leader in a neutral place (and if even this is excessive, what about a small humanitarian gesture, like returning Eli Cohen's remains?). But he will not make any gestures toward negotiations, apart from talk, because the return of the Golan Heights is not his top priority, and an agreement with Israel contradicts the essence of his policy as (perhaps the last) standard bearer of Arab nationalism: working toward Israel's disappearance from the Middle East in the long run. This is clear from Syria's consistent support for extremist terror organizations in general and Hezbollah in particular. For Syria, regaining control of Lebanon is a goal that takes precedence over, and is preferable to, regaining the Golan, which can wait until Israel is weakened by the combined pressure of Palestinian terror and the Iranian threat.

None of these issues justify damaging our close ties with the U.S., and the advantages of lining up with it are clear:

- If agreements are ever achieved between the U.S. and Syria and/or the U.S. and Iran, it is worth reading a sensible article in this week's Economist magazine to see how slight the chances are that Israel would be hurt by this. On the contrary: Its interests as a faithful ally of the U.S. will be taken into account in any such agreements.

- The U.S. coordinates, and will continue to do so as long as there is no fundamental change in the circumstances, with the bloc of moderate Arab states. Thus via the U.S., Israel is "annexed" to this bloc.

- For years, Israel has received American cover for its nuclear program, and this protects it from international pressure. And coordination with the U.S. will be even more essential if Iran's nuclear plans come to fruition. In that case, Israel will need an arrangement that provides it with an American umbrella for deterrence purposes.

- There is no need to expand on the importance of continuing American support in the international arena, and particularly at the United Nations. American military aid also continues to be essential - less from the financial perspective (Israel is capable of raising the equivalent of the military grant from its own resources) than from the military perspective (relatively free access to advanced weaponry, etc.).

Israel is often depicted by its enemies abroad and its critics at home as a "vassal" or even a "satellite" of the U.S. Being a vassal of a foreign power does not sound nice, but it must be remembered that the U.S. is an enlightened, democratic feudal lord committed to Israel's security and its territorial integrity. It is not its close relationship with the U.S. that is Israel's main problem in 2006, but rather serious problems in the conduct of government, blunders in the security sphere, neglect in the social sphere and corruption. The focus must be on these. Devaluing our relations with the U.S. would be a stupid and misconceived act of unparalleled proportions.