Israpundit
By Ted Belman
The New York Times recently announced Obama Speech Signals a U.S. Shift on Middle East.
“When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.
[..] “Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
To show that Obama was not alone in this, it buttressed his message by quoting from Sec’y Rice, Gen Patraeus and Martin Indyk. It might just as well have quoted from The Baker Report, Z Brzezinski and Sec’y Clinton.Actually this shift was a long time in coming. There have always been voices in the administration that viewed Israel as a liability rather than an asset.
Richard Holbrooke pointed this out in his recent article, “Washington’s Battle Over Israel’s Birth,” He quotes Secretary of Defense James Forrestal who made his case for non-recognition by saying “There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other. Why don’t you face up to the realities?” He concluded, “[To] this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman’s decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States.”
Then as now, Israel was opposed by “the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews, [including] the publishers of both the Post and the New York Times.”
The problem that these anti-Zionist forces had was that the American people strongly supported Israel and AIPAC was too powerful to take on. So they developed a plan to undermine AIPAC and discredit Israel.
The first salvo of which was the indictment of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC in 2005 for espionage related charges. The case was dropped four years later but the damage had been done to them and to AIPAC. To show how politically motivated the charges were James Kirchip wrote in WSJ,
- “If the offense were really criminal, half the Beltway press corps could be indicted. Mr. Franklin’s mishandling of classified documents deserved sanction, but 12 years in jail is far worse than the misdemeanor and fine meted out to former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger for stuffing secret documents in his clothing.”
An alternative to AIPAC was needed to counter or undermine its influence, so in April 2008, J Street was formed. George Soros backed them as he did Obama.
It was necessary to cast J-Street as pro-Israel so the term had to be redefined. Thomas Friedman, Jeffrey Goldberg and Jeremy Ben-Ami each took up the challenge. I took their arguments to task in “Redefining “What it means to be pro-Israel”.
Thus the groundwork was laid for Obama’s “tough love”. He is not just undermining and weakening Israel in the name of being “pro-Israel” he is also attempting to undermine the support of the American people for Israel by suggesting that a settlement of the dispute satisfactory to the Arabs is in America’s strategic interest or that Israel’s intransigence is costing “US blood and treasure”.
During the cold war with the USSR, no one doubted that Israel was a strategic asset to the US. Similarly today with the growing influence and power of Iran, Israel is a strategic asset in Iran’s containment and possibly her defeat. But in Obama’s world view, he would have opted out of the cold war as he is opting out of standing up to Iran. He prefers appeasement to confrontation. Thus Israel becomes a liability or a sacrificial lamb. He wants Israel to appease the Arabs rather than to confront them.
Caroline Glick recognized the stupidity in saying that the US had a strategic interest in achieving peace rather than in keeping Israel strong so she just wrote, The strategic foundations of the US-Israel alliance.. Paraphrasing her article could not do justice to the extremely strong case she makes. She also makes the point that not only is America better off with a strong Israel but so are the moderate Arab states. They recognize that Israel is not a threat to them and in fact, is a force for stability in the area. She also makes the point that “the two-state solution as presently constituted is antithetical to America’s most vital strategic interests in the Middle East.”
Beyond Israel’s strategic value, it is correct to say Israel does not “cost U.S. blood and treasure”. No US soldier has lost his life, fighting for Israel. On the other hand many Israeli soldiers have lost their lives fighting common enemies of both the U.S. and Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The US has not been drawn into any conflict because of Israel as Obama suggests. The US is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan because she perceives it in her national interest to do so. In fact should she leave Iraq as she presently intends, she is comforted by the fact that Israel is still in the ME and capable of protecting American interests and of ensuring stability in the area. It takes America six months to mobilize an invasion force of 500,000 whereas it takes Israel only 72 hours to do the same. Furthermore if Israel wasn’t there to protect Jordan, the US would have to be in Jordan.
Israel’s expertise and technology is shared with the US resulting in a great reduction in U.S. casualties first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan.
Amb Yoram Ettinger’s A Two Way Street highlights the importance to America of Israel’s contribution by referencing these quotes,
“Israel’s contribution to US military intelligence is greater than all NATO countries combined.”
Former Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig, a former Supreme Commander of NATO, refers to Israel as “the largest, most battle-tested and cost-effective US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single US personnel, cannot be sunk and is located at a most critical area for US national security interests.”
Once again, I can’t do the article justice by paraphrasing it.
In response to Obama’s treatment of Israel, a group of about 50 retired United States generals and admirals recently wrote a letter to Obama in which they expounded on “Israel as a Security Asset for the United States” urged him as well as Congress and the general American public to recognize how truly intertwined Israel’s success is with America’s.
As we know, the US hired private military contractors to assist in the fighting in Iraq. They formed an organization, Private Military Contractors and it published this major report, “Israel Assists US Forces: Shares lessons learned fighting terrorists. Fallujah Success capitalized on IDF Know How”.
Dr Steve Carol compiled an extensive list of the many benefits flowing to the US from the relationship and he included this reference,
“General George Keegan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence has publicly declared that “Israel is worth five CIA’s.” He further stated that between 1974 and 1990, Israel received $18.3 billion in U.S. military grants. During the same period Israel provided the U.S. with $50-80 billion in intelligence, research and development savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the U.S. “
The case for Israel’s strategic value is so overwhelming, one wonders what is motivating Obama and his minions. He is spending an enormous amount of political capital on this and for what? The Arabs aren’t spending any political capital or anything else for that matter.
This week Gen Jones acknowledged
“I can also say from long experience that our security relationship with Israel is important for America. Our military benefits from Israeli innovations in technology, from shared intelligence, from exercises that help our readiness and joint training that enhances our capabilities and from lessons learned in Israel’s own battles against terrorism and asymmetric threats.”
It seems there has been a change of policy in the last few days. Assure Israel of America’s undying love and support so it can be forced to accept the Saudi Plan.
Note: Two comments on Israpundit, but the 2nd comment is a tremendous back-drop of history, showing a lack of support for Israel:
American anti-Zionists hate Israel more than they love the United States.
If destroying Israel means damaging America, it is a price they will be thrilled to pay.
Comment by ayn reagan — April 23, 2010 @ 12:23 am
Ted who are you trying to convince that Israel is a net asset to America? Really who cares? What does it really matter in the wider scheme to things? Were German Jews a net asset to Germany? Did it help them if it were true? In all of Jewish history in the diaspora a case can be made that Jews were asset to the nations where they resided yet between the years 250 CE and 1948 CE - a period of 1,700 years - Jews have experienced more than eighty expulsions from various countries in Europe - an average of nearly one expulsion every twenty-one years. Jews were expelled from England, France, Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, Bohemia, Moravia and seventy-one other countries.
Wealth buys influence. Thirty years of oil wealth have given Arabs wealth that challenges Jewish riches acquired over the centuries. Technological advances create much of the capital today. The Jews’ traditional role as bankers is considerably diminished, along with a lot of Jewish lobbying leverage. The Saudis alone of all Muslims hold about a trillion dollars in United States assets. They buy more U.S. made weapons than Israel. Israel must be blind not to see she is losing Jewish economic advantage, stupid as well for giving up oil and gas fields of Sinai and not annexing them.
An Arab diaspora is occurring. Arabs have wealth, Western education, connections—and many of them are smart. Arabs make up important voting groups and have considerable political influence. As in Vietnam, an American defeat in Iraq may lead to an influx of Arab refugees. Arabs also occupy important posts in business and will eventually level the ground with Israelis in the competition for influence. Only Islam unites the Arabs, especially its aggressive fundamentalist strain. That is dangerous to Israel.
A Palestinian state would get a lot of United States aid and take Americans’ eyes off Israel, as happened in Egypt, now supported by many bureaucrats administering foreign aid and military assistance programs there.
Seems to me the only thing Israeli lobbyists can do is to show the consequences of withdrawing American support from Israel. Without American conventional weaponry, Israel would use the nuclear deterrent, which tempts Iran to generate nuclear programs with the likelihood that nuclear weapons will one day land in the hands of anti-American Islamic terrorists. If Israel lost American support, it would likely turn to Russia (as happened in 1948), France (as was the case until the 1960s)—and China. Whatever the choice, a country unfriendly if not hostile to the United States would influence the oil-producing Middle East (a magic word for gasoline addicts) and force concessions from America far in excess of what it now gives to Israel.
American support of Israel is not forever. The American military efforts in the Middle East conflict necessitate American cooperation with Arabs and dilutes partnership with Israel—a good reason Israel should have opposed the Iraqi invasion. Israel is mistaken to believe the United States would keep supporting Israel if only to prevent Israel from using nuclear weapons. There are other ways to stop Israel, most easily by offering American protection to Arabs in case of conflict with Israel.
America’s support for Israel is not built in. Alliances are based on concrete mutual interests, not metaphysics. France is more important for America in Europe than Israel in the Middle East, yet U.S.-French relations fluctuate wildly. Henry Kissinger brought the U.S. commitment to Israel to its current level to corner the Soviets with Israel; but that need has passed, and a determined Hussein Barak Obama could extinguish the American support for Israel.
The United States has walked away from allies before: the South Vietnamese, the Kurds. America stood by while the Soviets butchered the Czechs whom American-funded radio incited to revolt. France for years subverted an American client, the Shah of Iran, unopposed. Israel hopes she is different, but Israel is not, not for the American Protestant establishment.
America refused as little as bombing Nazi death camps to save the Jews, did not help Israelis threatened with annihilation in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and did not stop Arabs from launching the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, expected at the time to destroy or economically suffocate Israel. Israelis must be mad to count on America.
The support for Israel from some Christian fundamentalist groups also fuels the anti-Semitic sentiment of the rest. True, there were no major outbreaks of anti-Semitic violence even during the Great Depression, mainly because pogrom mobs need a feeling of invincibility, and they need tacit approval from the government. Though the US Administration is unlikely to incite against Jews, it does incite against Israel—which to the mob is the Jews. The government’s push for the peace process and the media’s out-of-context depiction of Palestinian hardships invariably set a significant part of the American population against Jews.
Anti-Semitism was open and strong in America before the ex-Jews took leading positions in the victorious liberal movement in the 1970s. To express anti-Semitism now is almost perceived as dangerous, especially in the business sphere, where Jews are numerous and influential.
Counter-intuitively, Jews who isolate themselves cause much less anti-Semitism than Jews who wholeheartedly embrace the surrounding society; Jews believe they are assimilated, but the Gentiles around recognize them for what they are—Jews, and bad ones at that.
People who abandoned their own roots, who hate their own heritage, who abandon the idea for which generations of their relatives ascended the Christian stakes and gallows—(they) can’t be good.
Jews, however assimilated, can never integrate into Gentile societies: they know those societies to be repressive, they fear Gentiles, and they work, consciously or otherwise, to subvert the existing societies. Thus the abundance of Jewish liberals who attack the traditional morals of every society. Germans of the pre-Nazi era feared Jews as communists bent on destroying their society; liberal Jews in America serve the very same role. American Jewish liberals were at the forefront of racial equality, affirmative action, gay rights, homosexual marriage, and many other developments which common Americans of the “moral majority” perceive as questionable assets, even a threat to their way of life and cherished values.
We site here many polls showing majority of American favorable opinions towards Israel but consider this: Probably in no country was anti-Semitism ever universal. A quarter of the population can do away with the Jews with the silent consent or natural indifference of the majority.
Comment by yamit82 — April 23, 2010 @ 7:39 am