Ettinger is wrong to say, “On the other hand, U.S. administrations have played the role of an honest broker between Israel and its Arab enemies. They usually follow the lead of the U.N. and Europe-oriented State Department bureaucracy”. I don’t believe they have ever been an honest broker in bringing about an agreement. Secondly, it doesn’t follow the lead of others but pursues its own agenda which is to force Israel to give up its gains from the ’67 War. The EU is pursuing its own agenda which leads it some where between the agenda’s of the State Department’s and the Arab League. Ted Belman
By Yoram Ettinger. ISRAEL HAYOM
All U.S. administrations have displayed a split personality when it comes to Israel.
On the one hand, U.S. administrations have been Israel’s unique ally, implementing the will of the American people and Congress since the 17th century, thus forging a mutually-beneficial, two-way street for security and commercial alliance based on shared values, joint interests and mutual threats.
On the other hand, U.S. administrations have played the role of an honest broker between Israel and its Arab enemies. They usually follow the lead of the U.N. and Europe-oriented State Department bureaucracy, which has generally been at odds with the American people and Congress, opposing the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948, still not recognizing even western Jerusalem as Israeli territory, embracing Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein (until Kuwait’s invasion) and Khomeini (until the U.S. Embassy takeover), and serving as Israel’s harshest critic in Washington.
The split personality of U.S. administrations radicalizes Arab positions, undermines U.S. and Israeli national security, and impairs U.S.-Israel relations. It attempts to establish a false moral equivalence between Israel – a role model of counter-terrorism, democracy and unconditional alliance – and the Palestinian Authority — the role model of terrorism, hate education and alliance with America’s adversaries.
In 2009, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer cautioned Special Envoy George Mitchell against pressuring Israel for an unprecedented long-term freeze of construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. However, pressure was applied, Israel succumbed and Mahmoud Abbas intensified his demands, thus causing the current impasse.
In August 1970, Israel and Egypt concluded a U.S.-negotiated cease-fire agreement, which was summarily violated by Egypt by their construction of the most-advanced Soviet-made anti-aircraft system ever. The U.S. Administration pressured Israel to tolerate such a dramatic violation, which played a key role in the devastating Israeli losses during the October 1973 War.
In 1977, Israel and Egypt launched a peace process, frustrating President Jimmy Carter’s pursuit of an international conference and courting radical Arabs. In 1979, Israel and Egypt concluded a peace treaty, overruling Carter’s insistence to require Israeli concessions on the Palestinian and Jerusalem fronts.
In 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty, totally independent of President Bill Clinton’s involvement.
The deal-maker of the only two Israel-Arab peace accords was the direct initiative and dialogue between Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The deal-breaker of well-intentioned presidential initiatives was the undermining of the direct dialogue, thus failing to produce a single peace accord.
Arab parties to U.S.-led negotiation with Israel cannot be more moderate than the U.S. Department of State. They consider Israel increasingly susceptible to pressure, thus upping the ante, which constitutes a tailwind to extremism and a headwind to peace.
The current U.S.-led initiative aims to produce a resolution of the 100-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict during the term of an incumbent president, subordinating long-term strategic interests to short-term gains. The time factor renders the president more vulnerable to pressure by Arab dictators who are not constrained by election cycles. The president is at ease pressuring Israel – a democracy susceptible to domestic and external lobbying — to assume more risks for peace, while the boiling Arab street mandates less risks and more security!
The Arab-Israeli conflict has never been a top priority in domestic, regional, or global politics, lagging behind – and unrelated to – the challenges of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the turmoil in all Arab lands, as well as Russia, China, North Korea, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, nuclear proliferation, ballistic missiles defense, etc. Presidential preoccupation with Israel-Arab negotiations, while the world is increasingly and unpredictably threatening, undermines vital U.S. economic and national security interests.
The more significant the role of the U.S. as an honest broker, the less significant its role as a unique ally; one that has produced unique economic and security benefits for the American people by Israel, such as the largest American aircraft carrier, which does not require a single American boot on board, deployed in the critical eastern flank of the Mediterranean, saving the American taxpayer $20 billion annually.
There are smothering sandstorms emerging on the Arab street. It behooves the U.S. and Israel to enhance their strategic cooperation, which should be heavy on unique alliance and low on honest brokerage.
Of course, that is often the very thing which makes war inevitable
— as shown in the behavior of one Neville Chamberlain, and for precisely that selfsame reason.
He’d known it personally, so tried to avoid it.
Regrettably, normal is all TOO . . . . normal.
I agree with Ted. Yamit’s points are well-taken.
And well put.
The link is useful. I hope other readers of this site will SAVE that linked article for study, and for ready access.
Yes, quite so.
GOP elites have tried to co-opt them, but without real success.
If they continue to grow in strength & numbers — as seems likely — there is good prospect that the Tea Party, most of whom are Christian Zionists (though “Israel” is not a Tea Party issue, as such) will take over the GOP.
Such an eventuality could well cause a general realignment of the parties; and for the better.
I agree.
And I explained WHY [above]:
“The Executive Branch is too much (and has been for too long) in the thrall of the State Dept bureaucracy — which wields immense & hideous power over the Oval Office (and outlives ANY administration) — for the presidency to ever be reliable in protecting the interests of Israel.”
— well, unless somebody were to come bougalooing down the pike and perform the herculean labor of cleaning out the Augean Stables at Foggy Bottom, where the striped pants, State Dept lifers hang out… I just wouldn’t recommend holding one’s breath waiting for such an event to transpire, however. (No color of shirt or blouse goes well with that shade of blue. . . .)
You are begging the question.
It’s not been established that I have any intrinsic bias toward Republicans over Democrats; you’ve made that assumption. I do tend to favor the current crop of the one over the other, it’s true.
But THAT certainly is not a hard choice to make — for any rational person.
Around 1970 or ’71, Republicans & Democrats virtually exchanged positions with each other (with regard to a whole host of issues); that could happen again, wouldn’t at all surprise me.
Fiddlesticks.
You don’t understand the difference between objectivity and impartiality.
The expressions are often used interchangeably, but — like “honest” and “frank” — they are not identical in meaning.
Impartiality is about not having — or about at least superficially disowning — any preference or interest in a matter.
Objectivity is about not being subject to the influence of one’s own inclinations or interests.
It’s common to ASSUME that a partisan ‘cannot’ be objective — but this is not necessarily so. An objective person CAN have a dog in a given fight; however, a disciplined & systematic observation of his own emotional life keeps him from being MOVED by it in making decisions regarding his own OR anybody else’s interests.
But to bring this back down to earth:
Yes, I do favor the present crop of Republicans over all the Demo’s; if it came down to it, I’d vote for a GOP Howdy Doody over Mr Wonderful (or anybody else the Demo’s would get behind). What’s more, all things considered, in the present era, I regard the GOP philosophy of govt — howsoever poorly upheld in practice — to be overwhelmingly healthier for the general polity than that of the Demo’s. No contest; not even close.
Does that fact effect my objectivity? — I think not.
You’ll recall that I’m the guy who said electoral politics always gets down to a choice between the lesser of the two evils. My eyes are wide open.
What you “said [above] about Reagan” — i.e., that he “denied the Holocaust” — was a crock of shit.
And YoursTruly stands by THAT.
My comments in regard to that matter — as anyone who reads them will readily see — only highlight the fact that you, Yamit, have no shame over your violating the injunction against bearing false witness against your neighbor if it suits your purposes and your personal pathology
— as it rather obviously does in regard to the late president: a decent, just and honorable man.
You miss the forest for the trees. (Why am I not surprised?)
Your linked article (and those to which it, in turn, is linked, therein) doesn’t dispute the value of Supply-Side economics [“Reaganomics”]. Rather, for the most part, it apparently laments that RR failed to adhere to it as purely and consistently as might have been WISHED. As it happened, of course, the need to spend heavily on military hardware as a means of bankrupting the USSR — a project which was crowned with spectacular success — forced the departure from Supply-Side economics in some part. But that hardly makes your case.
The truth is that the economic history of that Administration and its succeeding years is NOTHING SHORT OF EXTRAORDINARY.
What upsets me about all of this is:
1. I believe the majority of Americans support Israel as our trusted friend and ally. There is no reason not too. Israel has a government selected by her people, much of a democracy, wants to live in peace. Does not engage in terrorism against her neighbors or any other nation. One of the first to respond to emergencies throughout the world.
The problem is our government at times refuses to reflect the will of her people and its high time we wake them up. Time to clean house in Washington.
The US needs to put to an end financial and other aid to the Arab nations who sponsor and support terrorism, that includes aid to the Palestinians who don’t really want peace. They prefer to drive Israel off the map.
As Caroline Glick stated:
Caroline, I join you in your prayer and ask everyone to do likewise.
G-d does listen so please join in.
Excellent. I don’t quarrel with your objective to free Israel up to be more independent and less shackled. The US will still deal with us because we have much to offer them.
It is also true that the Republican elites have not historically been our friends. Just look at H W Bush and Baker etc. Jews vote Democratic because they have always been viewed as friendly whether or not they were in fact. e.g. Roosevelt and Carter. Johnson on the other hand was friendly.
But the Christian Zionists have gained strength and numbers over the last 20 years they are influencing the Republicans for the better. Not a done deal because the State Dept is as anti-Zionist as ever.
Neither Golda nor Begin would have given into Terror. They would have either used commandos to extricate Shalit and or assassinated top Hamas leadership one by one and kidnapped an important leader like we did with Sheik Yassin or both. Giving into terror in those days was unthinkable.
Israel has developed a casualty avoidance syndrome which plays to the populous political mindset of most Israelis. After so many continuous years of conflict spanning generations. Nobody here is naive about war where grandfathers, sons, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren hav served and known war. The older the population the more war and casualty avoidance we become. Those who have known war will usually be the first to avoid it, that is if they are normal.
I disagree. Cutting Israel down to size is not just territorial, it includes disarming Israel of her Nuke arsenal as well. America allows Iran and the Saudis to attain nuclear capability, Egypt to re-militarize Sinai, arm train and finance a Pali Army,support the MB throughout the region, and AL-Queda in Libya. Therefore cutting Israel down to size is in effect making Israel indefensible where Israels enemies mostly trained and supplied with top of the line American weapons, will do the job for the Americans. What other conclusions can you objectively reach?
You lost me here. In what ways does America help Israel? You know as well as I that American aid to Israel is mostly predicated on the basis of leverage. leverage not only with Israel but in the Arab world, by controlling Israel. In terms of alliances, the American one is empty. Our earthly protector gives Egypt and Palestine more aid than us, supplies Arabs more weapons than us, and pushes us around diplomatically. During the Yom Kippur war, Russia launched an airlift to Egypt on day one and brought nuclear missiles to its client’s defense, while the US Administration procrastinated until Israel decided the war with what weapons were available.
Israel the American client invokes no fear because everyone knows that Americans are slow to react, and in the end will intervene to prohibit a total Israeli victory.
The attempts to achieve for Israel closer ties with the US are a disservice to Jewish people. America will never, ever pursue Jewish interests as they are irrelevant to US voters and establishment alike. America embargoed weapons shipments to Israel during the Independence War, threatened intervention on Egypt’s behalf in the 1956 war, had operational plans for landing its troops in Sinai to defend Egypt in 1967, barred Israel from preemption in 1973 (and only shipped Israel weapons after we won the war), forced Israel to abandon Sinai, and now pushes us into the suicidal peace process.
From 1948 to 1972, Israel survived with no official sponsor. We played with France, Germany, America, even the Soviet satelite Romania, and survived. In a show of absurd loyalty, Israel sticks to America, but America sells her at every corner—for oil. If not for US pressure, Israeli governments wouldn’t even think of partitioning Jerusalem and giving the Arabs Judea and Samaria.
Israel cannot sustain an arms race with Muslims because dictatorships can funnel larger chunks of their budget into defense spending than a welfare democracy. So far, Israel still spends a larger part of her GDP on defense than any her enemies, but collectively they spend much more than Israel. Large-scale procurement of American weapons has made Israel dependent on America for any military operations and highly susceptible to threats of an American embargo on arms deliveries. Israel currently places tens of thousands of small (less than $100,000) orders with US defense contractors, which suggests across-the-board dependence on American suppliers for spare parts and minor items. That creates immense political dependence on the US. Combat boots and uniforms for example that once went to Israeli factories providing work for Arab and Druse villagers have been discontinued in favor of American supplied items. Boots and uniforms made by American companies in Haiti.
Military aid to Israel hovers at around three billion a year. Since 1970s, inflation and rising weapons costs have eroded that amount to insignificance. Three-quarters of the three billion are spent in the US. The US compound tax rate is 32%, presumably much higher in the defense industry where engineering costs (including taxable salaries) constitute a larger portion of the overall cost. Military aid after taxes therefore is about $1.4 bn annually.
In return for its military grants, America bans Israel from many profitable markets and deals and boosts its own arms exports. Minor aid buys America control over the strongest state in the Middle East and establishes America as regional arbiter.
America follows Jesus’ advice in the parable of the trader who, upon seeing a great pearl, sold everything and bought the pearl. America’s bribes to Israel for compliance are only euphemistically called “aid.” That Israel is the largest recipient of US aid is irrelevant. America pays for a particular benefit—control—not for improving the lives of Israelis. The Palestinians get more aid than Israel both per capita (from all sources) and relative to their GDP.
Israel must maintain normal relations with America but be free to pursue her own national interests. Israel the American client has no chance to pursue her own interests. We have sold our national sovereignty for peanuts and even those peanuts are indigestible even hazardous to our health.
The free supply of American weapons causes systemic distortions in the Israeli army. The IDF won all its wars lean, but after 1973 it battened on high-end weapons. We don’t need them. Israel’s nuclear option deters regular Muslim armies, and fighting guerillas with ultra-modern weapons is absurd.
Israel sells her sovereignty to the United States for peanuts.
Historically speaking Republican administration vis a vis israel have not shown to be better for Israel than Democratic administrations and I see no reason to suppose any future administration whether Democratic of Republican will break the long tradition of both being more anti Israel than pro. I believe your parochial bias favoring Republicans clouds your objectivity. Therefore your opinion has no merit empirically or intellectually.
BTW, I stand by what I have said re: Reagan, and your comments only reinforce what I have said above.
As a staunch supporter of Reagonomics may I suggest you read this:
I got a lot more if you challenge the facts here.
Appreciate your loyalty to your country along with your concerns. That said may I advise that you use whatever influence you may have to help remove any political and military roadblocks America is placing upon the Jewish nation. Not for our sakes for for Americas. America will be judged collectively based upon their treatment of the Jewish nation. The choice is Americas solely. Israel will survive in any event and even prosper but America is another matter.
With all due respect, Ted, governments may (or may not) help each other, but even when they do, they are NOT “friends.”
PEOPLES may indeed be friends.
But govts [i.e., states] are NOT — and cannot, in the nature of things, EVER be — friends.
They may share INTERESTS, from time to time, but — unlike their peoples — they themselves cannot share ‘friendship.’
A GOP president will — in all likelhood — desire to support her and won’t want to try cutting her down to size.
It does not, however, follow from that that a GOP administration will end up fulfilling the personal wishes of its president.
The Executive Branch is too much (and has been for too long) in the thrall of the State Dept bureaucracy — which wields immense & hideous power over the Oval Office (and outlives any administration) — for the presidency to ever be reliable in protecting the interests of Israel.
I think it’s a serious mistake to let our justifiable interest — in getting the best president we can — distract us from the awareness that the Legislative Branch is virtually always a more dependable associate. And that, I venture to say, is true not only for Israel but for all the other LITTLE countries that align themselves with USA [Taiwan, S. Korea, etc].
@Ted @yamit 82 @Dweller I value this site very much. Ted does an outstanding job in selecting articles. His postings are very informative and educational. I read his postings with interest. I’m also appreciative of your efforts and viewpoints.
As an” insider” I do not have profound insights but rather a lot of concerns. Many of the facts that critics of the United States state are correct. I take them and the conclusions as to motivations as hypotheses to be tested. if they were not offered, there would be nothing to be concerned about and tested.
As a sworn military officer my oath of loyalty and my interest is that of the United States. That is why I have emphasized that Israel and Israel alone is responsible for it’s security and survival. I think we all agree to share this interest: helping Israel remain secure. Helping Israel survive.
Francisco and I have corresponded and spoken on many occasions. He makes a good case. He is a very careful academic. Nevertheless, it is only a case. While I agree with the points he makes, I am unwilling to embrace his conclusions. They seem too categorical. On the question of whether the US is a friend or enemy of Israel, she is both. She support us in ways yet works to undermine us. Just like Kissinger said, we can cut Israel down to size but we won’t destroy her.
If Israel didn’t agree to be cut down to size, would the US then agree to destroy Israel? In other words, how far would the US go to achieve its goal of cutting us down to size? Israel accepts this duality as part of their relationship with the US.
Yamit disagrees. He argues that their friendship weakens us rather than strengthens us. By wanting to cut us down to size they are not our friends and I agree but that is only half of the equation. They also help us in many ways and in so doing they are are friends.
If Israel were to break the relationship and end the good parts, they would not end the bad parts. The US would still be working to cut us down to size. With that reality in mind, Israel should continue the relationship and reject US attempts to cut us down to size.
But I agree with AE when he suggests that a Republican admin’n will not try to cut us down to size and may even support our annexation of part of J&S. At a minimum it will listen to what Israel would like to happen and may even support her. I know Palin would have but don’t think Romney would.
Yes, I’m afraid so:
“Senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya says the Shalit-for-terrorists deal proves kidnapping works, and he promises more abductions.”
Most regrettably, some of the “basic facts” are neither basic NOR factual.
I grant you, it’s a useful resource and contains much important info; however, not all of it is entirely reliable, Colonel — as will be apparent, if you care to consider the exchange betw Yamit & myself regarding elements in that piece: which exchange arose following the “High Stakes Poker” article on this site (of earlier this year). My own numbered posts in that exchange were: 19, 21, 23, 26, 35, 41, 42, 43. In each case, of course, my remarks are in direct response to Yamit’s allegations supporting (or extending) Prof. Gil-White’s ‘findings’ — so by-all-means do read Yamit’s posts as well. If your time is limited, it may be constructive to note that (as you can well imagine) the discussion becomes more intense & specific as the post numbers get higher. There have been subsequent exchanges between us on this same topic on this site as well.
Also — based on what Salomon Benzimra (who provided the first post to the present article) has recently noted of his past experience with Prof Gil-White’s demonstrable axe-grinding proclivities, I would surmise that what will appear in the exchange I’m linking to [here, below] will not be unfamiliar territory; but Salomon can speak for himself.
GRINDING AN AXE
A pity that the West has yet to learn this
— or, more likely, re-learn what it has forgotten. . . .
You mean implant each with a self detonating explosive device.
Implant each of the thousand with a tracking device before they leave custody, and without their knowledge. . . .
So where is the real Treaty confirming and outlining that ‘real’ alliance?
So BB’s saying it makes it SO?
The operative word here is neither “broker” nor “honest.”
The operative word is ROLE.
BULLSHIT and flagrant SLANDER.
We’ve been over this ground before, Yamit. You were wrong then.
You’re still wrong.
And so is Gil-White.
Dead wrong.
Bury your dead, and move on.
Yamit 82 provided a link to a very lengthily and detailed article. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm I have read the entire article 3 times and listened to it twice. I appreciate him providing the link.
It is very sober reading and I urge everyone to read it thoroughly. I cannot disagree with the basic facts nor with the major conclusions.
For many years have urged Israel to make sure that if does everything in its own self-interest. Because the world does not care. The world gives you no credit for being “the most humane army.” Only Israel can assure Israel’s survival.
Now that the price been established at 1000 to 1, kidnapping and holding hostages is a very cost-effective technique. Next time will the price the 2000 for the recovery of a single hostage? Be sure that Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. see this as a sign of weakness. As my Islamic associate tells me “the bleet of the lamb excites the lion when he moves in for the kill.”
Now that your enemies are certain that Israel does not have the will to resist… Will the defeat of Israel now be assured?
Yamit. I’m curious. What do you think Golda Meir and Menachim Begin would have done about Shalit?
The Government of S. Korea are proud and would never kiss Americas ass like Israel. If we are shown little respect it is because we are undeserving based on the behavior of our Leadership. Respect must be earned whether on a personal level or national level.
Every Israeli killed in the future by those BB has released is on his head and his alone. I want to see him visit the greived famililies in the future and look them in the eye.. BB the terrorism expert who wrote books on not giving into terror is now the biggest appeaser to terrorism in the world. This is the message Hamas is right Israel only relates to terror and they will continue. Instead of Israel negotiating with Hamas they should have begun killing the Hamas leadership one a day until Shalit is freed. That’s the way to fight terror not give into it like Israel.
I am happy for Shalit and his family but saddened for the price Israel will pay in Jewish lives for the shameful even criminal weakness and stupidity of BB.
Netanyahu thanks Obama for US support on Israeli security
Prime minister also meets delegation of visiting U.S. Democratic lawmakers • Republican lawmakers expected to visit Israel later this month, talk with Israeli and Palestinian officials.
BB is Obama’s poodle it seems. BB is doing everything he can to screw the Republicans in favor of Obama. Does he know something we don’t? Or is it just BB the groveler doing his natural thing?
Hamas chief: First phase of Shalit deal will take place in one week
According to Khaled Meshal, 450 prisoners would be released during the first phase, while another 550 prisoners would be released in the second phase, set to take place in two months.
Shalit deal to include 1,000 security prisoners
Prisoner exchange for Hamas-held soldier to include release of notorious Palestinian terrorists, but may not includ ex-Tanzim chief Barghouti; two-phase deal to see 450 prisoners release parallel to Shalit; 550 more upon his return to Israel
Cabinet votes on Shalit deal
Government holds urgent session to discuss deal meant to secure release of Hamas-held IDF soldier. Netanyahu says at start of meeting that if everything goes as planned Shalit will return home within days after more than five years in Hamas captivity; sources say it is ‘highly likely’ deal would be approved by majority vote
Hamas: Shalit deal a national Palestinian achievement
Group’s Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal says prisoner exchange deal that would see Gilad Shalit return to Israel is ‘an accomplishment the Palestinian people should be proud of’; blames Israel for prolonging negotiations
1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Schalit’
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH AND REUTERS
10/11/2011 22:04
Mashaal calls deal a “national achievement”; Izaddin al-Kassam spokesman claims Israel has accepted all the demands of the captors.
Rogue’s Gallery: Some ‘Prisoners’ That May be Freed for Shalit
The general terms of a deal to free Gilad Shalit are not unknown, as Hamas has long demanded freedom for a host of arch-terrorists.
What great news now the Jews who defected from Obama because of his policies towards Israel can return to the fold. According to you your hero is now pro Israel and BB says so. RIGHT?
Yes ‘honest broker” and “evenhanded” are sisters. They sound good but aren’t and should be discarded.
To be an honest broker or even handed, you have to be deaf, blind and dumb. You must ignore the facts and the truth and equate the narratives of both. Then you have to force Israel to make concessions.
I will not permit you to smear Yamit again. Yamit is not weakening the alliance, he is merely describing what it is in truth. You continually paint Yamit and Hamas as sharing the same objectives. Stop it. That’s a smear job also.
Neither Yamit nor I deny that our alliance with the US has some benefits. We simply say it has some negatives as well. Yamit wants to go it alone. I want to say no to the bad parts and maintain what’s good. The admin won’t like it but the American people will and hopefully a new Repub admin’n.
Ted knows the history but unlike Ettinger is neither I believe an Americaphile or an apologist for America. Ettinger has been an American stooge ever since he was he liaison between the Israeli embassy in Washington and the congress. Most of his tired cliches re: America if they were ever really true are no more nor have they been since the end of the cold war. I think but have not investigated it, that he has some serious business interests in the States.
As usual, this is pure, truth-twisting dog-poo based on Yamit’s objective of weakening the Israeli-US alliance – an objective he shares with Hamas.
Every Israeli government since 1948 has advocated a two state solution in the region. This has only been thwarted by the Palestinians who have no intentions of living in peace with Israel – they want to replace Israel – and have been good enough to put this objective in writing. In spite of this, just a couple of weeks ago we saw Michael Oren and Bibi Netanyahu on Fox News begging the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate a two state solution.
The next US President – who should be a conservative Republican unless Yamit and the liberal American Jews prevail again – will be someone who knows the Palestinian objective and will support Israel if it decides to finally take the logical steps based on the written Palestinian objectives. These steps should include telling the UN to go screw itself, annexing J&S and Gaza at the next opportunity, deporting all militants, and hunkering down behind this new, improved status quo for the long haul.
The US is Israel’s only real ally. It has spent BILLIONS of its hard earned tax money to support Israel for decades, has ongoing arms and intel agreements, has protected Israel’s interests with UNSC vetoes, not to mention pledges of standing together against a nuclear Iran.
Without this alliance with the world’s remaining superpower over the years, Israel would be toast.
http://blog.dailyalert.org/tag/u-s-alliance-with-israel/
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=181076
Quote:
“The alliance between Israel and the US is stable and strong. It has the support of the American administration and people,” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said at a cabinet meeting Sunday.
Unquote.
Ceremonies throughout Israel for Yom Kippur War Dead
Central ceremony at Military Synagogue at Har Herzl marks 38 years since the war that claimed 2,689 Israeli lives.
By Gil Ronen
Golda Meir, fearful of the American reaction and procrastinating in the face of a Jewish holiday, did not preempt in 1973 when the Egyptian military buildup was unmistakable, though she could have deluded herself about its purpose. Compounding a grave error with a grave crime, Golda sent Jewish reservists to the slaughter, which resulted in 10,000 casualties—instead of employing nuclear weapons. Golda’s fear of world opinion greatly exceeded her concern with Jewish lives. That ugly character famously announced that she could forgive the Arabs for killing Jews, but not for making the Jews to kill Arabs. Likewise, her accomplice Moshe Dayan remarked during the early stages of the Yom Kippur war, “We’re witnessing the Third Temple’s destruction,” and reportedly was on the way to offer capitulation instead of nuking the Arabs.
The appeasement of gentiles, a policy brought to the fore by Golda Meir, produced bloody fruit: the IDF was instructed to save Arab lives. In practice, that meant not firing at the civilians used by the terrorists as shields, so that Jews often operated without air support and suffered heavy casualties. No doubt the gentiles were concerned with the civilian death toll. These were the very gentiles who designed blockbuster bombs to rip away the roofs so that subsequently dropped incendiary bombs could set houses on fire more reliably; fried (and rightly so) Dresdners caused no public outcry in Albion.
Based on the following not only is America no ally she is no broker honest or otherwise:
Is the US an ally of Israel?
A chronological look at the evidence
Historical and Investigative Research — by Francisco Gil-White
[ this piece updated regularly ]
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm
____________________________
1945 – Negative – After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.
1947-48 – Mixed to Negative – Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.
1949-1953 – Negative – In Israel’s hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel’s mortal enemies.
1955 – Mixed – The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.
1955-1965 – Positive (in one regard only) – Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.
1958 – Negative – Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does…nothing.
1964 – Mixed – The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?
1964-1967 – Negative – Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.
1967 – Negative – After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.
1967-70 – Negative – The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.
1970 – Positive – Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.
1973 – Positive – The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War.
1973-1975 – Negative – The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.
1975 – Negative – The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.
1977 – Negative – Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a ‘government in exile,’ and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.
1978 – Negative – When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back.
1979 – Negative – Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
1981 – Negative – The US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections.
1982-1983 – Negative – The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.
1985 – Negative – 1985 includes more material than other years, so we have divided it into subsections.
1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests.
2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them.
3. Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust
4. Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?
1987-1988 – Negative – The ‘First Intifada’ was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed ‘underdogs.’
1989 – Negative – With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the ‘only solution’ to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
1991 – Negative – Bush Sr.’s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.
1994 – Negative – Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat’s henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.
1996-1997 – Negative – The United States exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that had elected him.
2005 – Negative – Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.
NO! And if there was one the USA wouldn’t be it.
“Honest broker” is supposed to mean not showing any favoritism to either side, taking each side’s grievances at face value, and from there, trying to forge a workable compromise between the two sides based on their respective needs and grievances.
I guess this might work in the field of marriage counseling. Sometimes.
Yes, it is an empty cliche, forced upon Israel by the Arabists in the State Department, who are in turn encouraged by the incessant whining – and wining, and dining, and bribing – of the Arabs.
“You always side with Israel!”, they cry.
They say this ANY time any U.S. official takes Israel’s side on ANY issue.
So, the only way to satisfy them on this score, to stop their complaining about our alleged “favoritism” towards Israel, is to NEVER take their side at ALL. To them – the Arabs – we can only be an “honest broker”, if we take their side, every time. With Obama, they finally got pretty much what they’d been asking for (and they’re still not happy, and won’t be, until the U.S. declares war on Israel).
Kind of reminds me of a similar tactic they used a few years ago in order to completely dominate media coverage on their terms here. In the early part of the last decade, we started hearing a lot of pro-Arab commentators incessantly complaining about how “all we ever hear is the Israeli point of view”, even when that was rarely the case, even at that time. The “other side” was being “muzzled”, they said. So now, we practically NEVER hear the Israeli point of view, EVER. …And they’ve stopped complaining. Now WE are the ones who are muzzled, and anyone who tries to break their monopoly, like Glenn Beck, gets smeared to the max. The rule today is this: If you don’t have anything bad to say about Israel, don’t say anything at all.
Interesting recent spectacle of this principle in action: Abbas’ recent appearance at the UN got practically NO coverage on FOX. While he was giving his speech, and then followed by Netanyahu, FOX had some business program on. The whole thing only rated a few lines on the newscrawl and a few sentences of commentary. No one at FOX – NO ONE – went into any serious detail over this. CNN, of course, gave it plenty of coverage, and was all but gushing over Abbas’ speech.
Funny, how no one expects us to be an “honest broker” between North and South Korea. Nobody really expected us to be an “honest broker” in SE Europe….it was either Milosovich leaves those poor SE European Muslims alone, OR ELSE.
Over the course of my local Israel advocacy, one point I stress is that we have to dispense with this “honest broker” crap, and not even bother to plead for “even-handed” treatment. That is all b.s. I say what we need to shoot for, is to make the case that Israel deserves, at a bare minimum, the same respect and consideration as a U.S. ally that South Korea gets.
Does anybody know what an “honest broker” is except a cliche?
@cliff dweller Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your phraseology and observations.
Perhaps it is more correct to say that — while US administrations have played the ROLE of “honest broker” — this doesn’t mean that their playing of it has been ‘honest.’
On the whole, however, I found the piece quite trenchant and insightful.
Observations like the following don’t typically get any where NEAR as much play as they should (to the degree that they get any at all):
I think that Ted Bellman and Yoram Ettinger are saying the same thing.
The concept of “honest broker” in approaching the Middle East conflict bit the dust in Canada with the defeat of the Liberal party and the victory of the Conservatives under PM Stephen Harper’s principled policies. One of the promoters of that concept – as “progressive” as it is idiotic – was former Liberal Canadian ambassador to the UN, Paul Heinbecker.
On September 25, 2011 Heinbecker contributed an article to a Palestinian website, where he lays bare his pathetically flawed rationale.