By Ted Belman
American policy regarding the Arab/Israel conflict has not changed since the Armistice Agreement in 1949.
American policy sought to to achieve a holy balance in the Israeli-Arab conflict. ”This policy had its origins in the tripartite U.S.-British-French declaration in 1950, against arms sales to either side. The Soviets exploited this policy to sell arms to the Arabs, and the French looked after their own interests when they supplied weapons to Israel, but the Americans preserved an outward appearance of egalitarianism.” So reported Haaretz in 2007 based on then recently released documents.
-
“Washington’s support for the existence, independence and territorial integrity of all the states of the region was translated into adherence to the armistice lines of 1949: not to allow Egypt, or any combination of Arab states, to destroy Israel, but also not to allow Israel to expand westward, into Sinai, or eastward, into the West Bank. The American pressure in this regard brought the IDF back from El Arish in Operation Horev in 1949 and from Sinai in 1956. A version of it would appear in Henry Kissinger’s directives after the IDF encircled Egypt’s Third Army at the end of the Yom Kippur War of 1973. “
America even had plans for intervention should intervention be needed to maintain their policy. In late May, 1967, these plans were dusted off with the intention of updating them. But events unfolding so quickly that they had to be scrapped in favour of working as quickly as possible through the UN and Russia, to establish a ceasefire.
Even the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel did not lead to intervention but to a quick resolution negotiated by PM Eshkol and Pres. Johnson.
It was recommended at the time that “Following the cease-fire, U.S. ground forces would be moved in for peacekeeping missions. The return of territories would be achieved primarily by diplomatic means, with military force to be used only if “absolutely necessary.”
President Johnson was a friend of the Jews and Israel and he had appointed three key officials who were more sympathetic to Israel than their predecessors: Walt Rostow as national security adviser, Richard Helms as CIA chief, and General Earle Wheeler as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Even with such good friends in the White House, Res 242 was the best the US would offer. She amended her original policy by not requiring Israel to withdraw from all territories. She allowed Israel to remain in occupation until she had “secure and recognized borders”. She could have and should have let Israel keep it all in accordance with international law as she had won it in a defensive war.
Two years later Richard Nixon, no friend of the Jews, became President and he proposed the Rogers Plan which conformed to the original US policy with these words,
-
“We believe that while recognized political boundaries must be established, and agreed upon by the parties, any change in the pre-existing lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security. We do not support expansionism.”
In 1975, Henry Kissinger, also no friend of the Jews, advised an Iraqi diplomat, in line with US policy,
-
“On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world …We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions….”
Pres G.W.Bush supported this policy by including the Saudi Plan calling for it, in the Roadmap. A year later he recanted somewhat in his letter to PM Sharon and embraced Res 242 to the exclusion of the Saudi Plan.
-
“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”
Pres Obama would have none of it and returned to the Saudi Plan requiring ’67 borders with insubstantial exchanges.
Thus the US policy formulated after the Armistice lines were agreed upon in 1949, stands in the way of a solution to the conflict. The US is trying to engineer an outcome in line with this policy without taking into account that Israel now has a population ten times larger than it had in ’48 and has 600,000 of its citizens living east of the armistice lines. To help achieve this end, she arms the Arabs, denies Israel the right of self defense, turns a blind eye to her deligitimation and even contributes to it, encourages the EU to undermine Israel and apply pressure and threatens to no longer protect Israel with her veto. She also funds UNRWA which maintains the Palestinian refugees in camps rather than demands they be resettled.
Obama has embraced the Saudi Plan which calls for the application of Res 194 which recognizes the “right of return” for refugees who want to return to pre ’67 Israel. Obama has yet to make a direct statement on the “right of return”.
At the core of US policy is the idea that the Arabs are more likely to accept Israel if she were forced to make a full retreat. But where is the evidence of his. All evidence points to the fact that the Arabs object to the existence of Israel regardless of her borders. After all, that is why they went to war against Israel in the first place. A shrunken Israel, rather than advance the cause of peace, will be an enticement to war.
Assuming the US goal is peace or at least, stability, her policy should be to keep Israel strong with defensible borders. She should support the Jordan River as Israel’s eastern border and resettle all refugees elsewhere. Remember, if the US forced Israel to accept the return of 5 million refugees or even 2 million, even to the Palestinian state only, this would be very destabilizing to Palestine and to Israel. Imagine the unrest which would be caused by such an underclass within Palestine where they would be a majority. Imagine further that they invade Israel en masse all along the border. How could Israel stop them?
Why is it that the Palestinians insist on the refugee “right of return”? The answer is simply that they don’t want them. No Arab country does. They use “right of return” as a tool to destroy Israel.
I hope the US understands this. I hope Israel understands this.
Sen. Mitchell is back in Israel to work on settling the core issues, Jerusalem, refugees and borders. Pursuant to the original US policy, defensible borders are not in the cards. The US will allow for certain security needs such as Israel’s control of the Jordan Rift, and the air space but she wants these provisions to be time limited.
There is nothing to suggest that Jerusalem can be shared peaceably.
Instead, its damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. Jerusalem as a city and concept is holy only to Jews. Why should they be required to share it with the Arabs. The Arabs living in Jerusalem could become citizens of Israel just like Arabs now living in Israel are. They would be glad to.
The two-state solution harkens back to the UN Partition Plan of ’47. But that General Assembly resolution was illegal in that it violated the UN obligations to uphold the Mandate to create a Jewish state in all of Palestine. It was also only a recommendation. Why is the US slavishly adhering to it. But present policy is worse than the Partition Plan which drew borders based on demographics. At a minimum the US should follow the same principle and work toward borders based on demographics today. But no, she would rather force Israel to uproot in excess of 100,000 of her own citizens.
In short, the US is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. She must stop being governed by past policies and formulate a new policy based on current realities,.with a view to future stability.
The numerous references to God in this discussion borders on the delusional.
For those who really believe in God, God is involved in everything in the world, not just what you want to believe from your worm’s eye view. HE was even involved in the Holocaust and the defeat of the Nazis and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. HE was involved in 9/11 and the liberations of Iraq and Afghanistan. HE is involved in Iran. HE will be involved when, Inshallah, Iran is returned to its pre-Persian civilization.
HE was involved in the formation of Israel, the rejection by the Arabs, the attempts to wipe it off the map, and HE is involved in the stand-off between the Israelis and the Palestinians, with no end in sight.
As far as Israel is concerned, HE is protecting Israel while working hand in glove with America as his tool here on Earth.
At the end of the ’67 war, Israel agreed to withdraw to “secure borders.” Israel withdrew from the Sinai. That’s one huge piece of withdrawal!
Staring at the map, the other parts of a “secure border” look like that nice straight line down the Jordan River, a good loop around the Golan, and no “cut out” for a place called Gaza. If only there had been annexation in the fall of ’67. But now? It’s still the best plan, but comes with population problems (and Gaza is probably a lost cause). I liked the proposal of Mr. Martin, was it? Offering financial inducements for emigration… Okay, that’s a dream.
I have no “solution,” but I like the simplicity of a geography that makes more sense.
There is no need to kick a dead horse. American Eagle is correct.
Now, at long last, Jews, after years of persecution, have become warriors. Fearsome. Strength is better than weakness. They should act the part.
Unless there is a decisive all-out war the status quo is likely to continue indefinitely. If it comes to that, the objective should be a one-state solution in which the rights of minorities are protected through a bill of rights, as pertains in the US and India, which will encourage any secular Muslims to stay and the radicals to disperse.
One of the problems in Israel is that there is a minority but significant section of Jews who are little different from the radical Arabs in their insular, self-righteous, religion-based attitudes. Instead of considering the interests of all Jews this minority tries to impose a religious test that even disqualifies most Jews who do not hew to their interpretation of Judaism. This weakens the Jewish people from within.
The test should be loyalty to Israel, not some narrow religious point-of-view. All Jews should be free to practice their version of Judaism but should not be allowed to pretend that this makes them superior to other Jews who may be just as loyal to Israel.
Since the Arabs continue to refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state, even though all the Arab countries are Muslim states, and have also refused to renounce violence, none of these peace agreements are going anywhere. Using this Palestinian intransigence as a reason, Israel needs to tell the international community, including the US, that all prior agreements are being immediately rescinded, which is nothing but an acknowledgment of the status quo. The international community will all piss and moan as they always do, but they have been doing the same over India and Pakistan’s dispute over Kashmir which is also mired in its own status quo. They may impose economic sanctions, which will harm the Palestinians more than Israel. Imam Obama will soon be history and none of the likely Republican candidates to replace him, especially Sarah Palin, are likely to go along with sanctions on Israel. This is why it is also important that those Israelis who piss and moan about US policy, which is little different from what the Zionist founders of Israel had accepted, be allowed to drive a wedge between Israel and the US, its only real ally in tangible terms, through whom Hashem has been working for decades now.
If push comes to shove Israel should take any territory it wants to and expand the status quo. No more contraction, only expansion, by force if necessary. Before that Israel needs to make damn sure they will prevail by force and not have a repeat of the debacle against Hezbollah in South Lebanon, because Hezbollah has fully re-armed and then some.
It would also help a great deal if Israel can find a way to drive a wedge into the fault lines between the Sunni and Shia which were exposed by Wikileaks. Divide and conquer is an unbeatable strategy as the Brits proved time and again by conquering much of the world during the colonial era.
Obama, Mexamerica, Jewish Israel:
The realization that Obama is not a muslim, not black, and not white, but rather he is an ultra-liberal masquerading (in an Orwellian fashion) as a centrist, is the scariest thing of all.
As an ultra-liberal, Obama has one main and one secondary objective. The secondary objective is to destroy Jewish Israel, just as the ultra-liberals have already destroyed white South Africa and christian Serbia. (Obama equates Israeli Jews reclaiming their god-given ancestral homeland with nazi racist white Afrikaaners who left their Dutch homeland to colonize South Africa and exploit blacks.)
But Obama’s main objective is to destroy the traditional white christian conservative American middle class, resulting in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic post-national nothingness (a mini united nations). He used the financial crisis caused by the greedy selfish financiers, who now own America, to help achieve his goal. The previous fraudulent prosperity created the illusion of real wealth among the white middle class. When these phoney jobs disappeared, a large swath of the white middle class fell off the grid, with no new jobs to replace them.
Meanwhile, Obama continues to expand the government (now America’s largest employer), using affirmative action to discriminate aginst whites, and creating countless new make-work jobs with no productivity, no accountability, but with good pay and benefits, and job security since no one can be fired.
But the key element of Obama’s plan is to dilute the white majority so that it can never dominate America again. He would prefer to import muslims and blacks, but the logistics are too difficult. So, instead, he floods America with Mexicans, forbids the federal government from stopping them, prosecutes state governments when they try to stop them, and does everything he can to legalize them so they can vote against white Republicans.
Obama’s goal is to make the United Staes and Mexico indistinguishable: America will simply become north Mexico.
Ana, I agree with you and I have stated it many times. The Holy Land should not be divided or parceled out in the name of peace. First of all G-d led the Jews back to the Holy Land (From the River Jordan to the Mediterranean including Samaria, Judea, Gaza, the Sinai and the Golan Heights)and although they have G-d given rights to the Holy Land I am believe G-d has not given anyone permission to divide it. In fact I believe they should start recovering what was already given up.
This was fulfilled over 2700 years ago. So was the rest of Isaiah 17.
Pity christian rapture quackery.
Ana, thx for your knowledgeable support.
I wonder why the inventor of the stuxnet virus didn’t program it to detonate their nukes?? That would solve many problems for the ME………..I pray for the peace of Israel.
Hi, Ana.
I think you’ve been swayed by Yamit’s propaganda. As far as I can see, Israel has not done so well historically. The Crusaders ruled from Jerusalem for a longer time than the modern State of Israel; and whereas the Jews dwindle in numbers every year, their old nemesis the Christians have filled the earth. Israel has done so-so, and is currently clinging onto life.
When you talk about a “triumph”, I get the picture of a naval battle in which all the ships are destroyed, and a man in rags grabs onto a floating spar. Israel’s triumph impresses me as being like that man on the spar. The Bible says, “Except God had shortened the days, there would no flesh be spared”. Since my future is not in this flesh, I’m not concerned.
In reply to John’s comment:
“So I believe that if Iran attempts to nuke Israel that God will intervene and make their bombs hit Hamas, Hesbola, and Syria, fulfilling the prophecy that Damascus will be destroyed. Then Antichrist will appear and make the ‘temporary’ peace with Israel simply because he will have no other choice. What do you think.”
John, not sure what your intent is with your comment. What I am saying here, is that throughout Israel’s history, she has been outnumbered, considered the “under dog.” However, Israel has triumphed. She is a Nation that has been “blessed” by G-d, and I’m saying this NOT as a religious fanatic, but as an individual looking at her history.
Regarding Iran, well, US & Israel unfortunately (in my opinion) have missed the boat. Iran should have been stopped years ago; now, the world, not just Israel, faces a huge threat from their insane and twisted leadership. Personally, I think a covert, well-planned operation deserves implementation, both from the US & Israel, but on a more aggressive level. This would include the cooperation of any nation (such as the Saudis) who are concerned about their safety (and they should be). I wouldn’t be surprised if something is already in the works. Let’s see, 2 key scientists killed by bombs recently, plus the Stuxnet virus (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/09/despite-iranian-claims-stuxnet-worm-causing-nuclear-havoc/)??
I don’t have a solution, nor am I qualified to suggest one. What I can say is that Israel should stand firm in her conviction and not cave into the pressures of giving up borders or dividing Jerusalem, and yes, G-d is on her side.
All too often Obama’s view is called America’s view when in reality it is not. Many, or maybe I should say most Americans are not with Obama’s view. As a right-wing conservative, I desire to see Israel thrive and prosper and be the country where the desert blossoms like a rose. I cannot understand how Obama thinks that Israel must get his, or anyone else’s, permission before they can defend their borders to any length. Obama see’s the world as borderless and would make it so if he could. I believe that the 2012 election will see a president with a greater appreciation of Israel.
Forgot one more thing, as my husband has said, perhaps Bibi should tell Obama to return Texas and New Mexico back to the Mexicans, which the US conquered during war, and then just maybe Israel will consider dividing Jerusalem. In fact, every country in the world should then follow the same protocol, return their lands!
Obama would think that proposition is ridiculous; well, that’s how ridiculous it is for any nation, or any government, to step in and expect Israel to divide Jerusalem and shrink its borders.
Great article Ted and a realistic one. There are quite a bit of us here in the US that support 100% Israel’s current borders and statehood. Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people, not the Arabs. Unfortunately, we have a left-wing, communist administration, headed by what most of us believe here (US), a Muslim President, that has made every effort to appease the Arabs, instead of standing by Israel. Many of us in the US know that “appeasement” will not work, especially when you have Muslims that hate Jews (along with Christians and anything else that is not Muslim) and want to see Israel destroyed. It is a deceptive tactic that the current US administration is employing.
I agree in part with Yamit – American policy needs to stay out of this, and let Israel govern itself and make her own choices as nation. Keep your borders, Israel, and keep Jerusalem. Many Americans support you; we (US) are also in the midst of our own political revolution.
My final message: Israel – remain strong; do not cave into “bully tactics” used by this current US Administration, or the UN (which is another falsehood), or the EU, or the Arab Emirates. Keep building your settlements, and protect your borders with every ounce of strength you have. G-d is on your side and will always be.
So I believe that if Iran attempts to nuke Israel that God will intervene and make their bombs hit Hamas, Hesbola, and Syria, fulfilling the prophecy that Damascus will be destroyed. Then Antichrist will appear and make the ‘temporary’ peace with Israel simply because he will have no other choice. What do you think.
I was sent the following. Is this otherwise sane Israeli military expert recommending another Gaza :
Martin van Crevald, one of Israel’s leading military historians, and no peacenik, has published a piece in the Forward that makes the following claims:
1) Israel is militarily in an extremely strong and secure position.
2) Holding on to the West Bank will be detrimental to Israel’s future (in fact, he says that he will tell his grandchildren to leave such an apartheid country if Israel doesn’t withdraw)
3) It would be preferable for the withdrawal to be negotiated, but not necessary.
4) It would be preferable for a Palestinian state to be demilitarized but not necessary.
5) Withdrawal from Gaza was very successful for Israel’s security.
Samuel Fistel,
That is why I am mad as hell at GW. It is REALLY too bad he didn’t take the Iranians out before leaving the WH – especially as it was clear who, and what, obumer is. It might have saved us all (America, Israel, the world) a lot of grief. Everyone, especially the press, would have screamed bloody hell for three weeks and then gone back to business as usual – or on to the next crisis.
Wikileaks, Obama, Clinton, Jewish Israel:
The first impression many of us had of Obama was that he was a muslim wannabe, and that his hatred of Jewish Israel was similar to the muslims.
But Wikileaks shows us his true ideology (and that of his ideological soulmate Hillary Clinton) is even worse. He is an ultra-leftist pretending, in an Orwellian way, to be a center-leftist. We come to see that when Obama, as opposed to worshipping the Saudi king, laughs at him instead when he asks Obama to keep Iran from building a nuke.
His hatred of Jewish Israel is that of the ultra-left: he considers Israeli Jews to be devils in human form, the equivalents of Nazis and Afrikaaners, racists, colonialists, and imperialists, who have come to palestine from elsewhere to colonize it, steal the land from its rightful, innocent, helpless owners, in order to set up an apartheid state.
He agrees with Arafat that, in the current atmosphere, Israel can only be destroyed in stages. So his plan is 1. Stop Israeli expansion (freeze the settlements with no natural growth). 2. Work with the Israeli left to overthrow Netanyahu. 3. Evacuate the settlements. 4. Make Israel withdraw to 1949 borders. 4. Arm the palestinians and encourage their formation of a state to cage up Israel.
Obama sees the Iranian nukes as a win-win-win situation for him. 1. If Israel pre-emptively strikes Iran, Obama will declare Jewish Israel to be international war criminals. 2. If Iran nukes Jewish Israel, Obama will celebrate (in private) the deaths of the Jewish nazis who “got what they deserved”. 3. The Iranian nukes and the growing influence of shiite iraq and hizbolla will make the gulf sunni arabs totally dependent on America to protect them.
Since this is the silly season, let me try to top you. Israel nukes Tel Aviv, Washington and New York , (perhaps we may throw in L.A. as well)
Indeed, a nightmare scenario. Though I wouldn’t put it past Barak.
/
Israel and the Nightmare Scenario:
1. Iran is building nukes to use against Jewish Israel.
2. Iran is supplying Hizbollah, Syria, and Hamas with a massive amount of small missiles to use against Jewish Israel.
The nightmare scenario:
1. Israel nukes Tel Aviv.
2. Simultaneously, Hizbolla, Syria, and Hamas launch massive missile barrages.
3. Immediately after, every palestinian grabs a knife, dresses up as a Jew, and moves into Israel killing every Jew they can find.
(And when the Israeli leftist “Jews” see this happening, they immediately dress up as Jews, and help the muslims kill every Jew they can find.)
A few years ago, a representative from Women in Green wrote a piece about this nightmarish, but entirely plausible scenario. Yes, how would Israel stop a “million-man march” of Palestinian Arabs on its border? Strafe-bomb? I can hear the sound of the gavel at the UN now as a resolution is unanimously passed under Chapter VII demanding Israel halt its “genocide” of the “Palestinian people” and reaffirming Article 11 of UN Resolution 194 (“right of return” for Palestinian “refugees”.
Mazel Tov! You have, after eight years, finally come to terms with the “Greatness of George W. Bush”. Though admittedly, I now miss him.
If you think this you truly live in a dream world. Capitalism has created a WORLD system
Now Yamit that really is complete balls. It is not what you wish for in this world that counts. It is what the cards deal you out
No chance of peace Yamit. Your politics are driving to the Samson Option, which is the despair of the Jewish petty bourgeoisie.
Israel needs to NOT wait, to strike proactively, and to rally all support it is possible on a world stage
Good analysis Ted and I agree with Yamit
See
http://www.debka.com/article/20461/
From this it appears to be working out in practice that if Israel is to survive and not go the way of Kosovo then the Israeli ruling class of Bibi and Barak have to put their foot down
The US Govt of Obama has been substituting itself for Israeli elected leaders.
Where Yamit and Samuel Fistel are wrong is that isolation is not the answer either.
Israel must have a policy independent of US elites and drive for support into the American people, especially into close alliance with CUFI and others, to try to reach American workers in struggle against Fascist Left and Trade union bureaucracy
That Yamit and Samuel will never do.
This time isolationism leads to defeat Yamit
I was nodding in agreement with each of your points till your last concluding point above.
Why do we need American involvement at all? No matter what policy is formulated in Washington, it will not be favorable to our interests. Any compromise over Territory or population (Israel increasing more Arabs under her sovereignty) is a recipe for disaster. There is no such animal as defensible borders in the context of modern warfare (missiles and rockets) not to mention WMD. Even minimal strategic depth requires expansion of territory not contraction or reduction of existing territory. With almost 30% of our population comprising of potential 5th column citizens and illegals we have an enemy without and an enemy within. Defensible borders cannot be defined in such a context.
American policy is based on Americas perceived interests not ours. American policy towards Israel, even when it appears is not in Americas interests can with not much intellectual gymnastics be credited to an extreme animus towards Jews in general and Israel in particular; By the entrenched elite policy makers and bureaucracy that have set the tone and direction of American policies and engagement with Israel since FDR’s time if not before. No single politician holding the office of President for 4 or 8 years can radically change entrenched American policy perceived or otherwise. This is a flaw in the Presidential system. The other side can just wait out a particular president until he is replaced.
Take the American Embassy law as a case in point or a litmus test as to how the system works. It’s all smoke and mirrors;. According to America Israel is not even allowed to decide where it’s own capital is located and no one that I have heard even most Arabs deny that Western part of Jerusalem is part of Israel, except in the context of denying our right and legitimacy to any part of the Land of Israel. America therefore in this context supports that Arab/Muslim position.
I am in favor therefore to see an America that removes herself out of all of the ME back to their hemispheric sphere of traditional interest. That would mean that Israel would be their main regional Power and elevate our status as necessary to American regional and global interests.
The way the American Economy is developing in a few years this might just happen out of no choice. A bankrupt America will have to cut the military down to an affordable size.
Lastly you predicate your position upon the implied premise that Israel really wants a peace agreement as opposed to Israel just wanting peace and to be left alone. Most Israelis can live with the current status quo for as long as it takes. The current status quo should be Israel’s hardened red line of retreat.