DOES THIS STILL EXIST??....The U.S.-Israel Special Relationship

DOES THIS STILL EXIST??....The U.S.-Israel Special Relationship¹

Eli E. Hertz

Characterized by more than universal human and Judeo-Christian values, a special relationship has developed between the United States and Israel based first and foremost on American national interests.

U.S. elected officials and senior civil servants formulate American policy based on their foreign policy assessments and not based on powerful vested-interest groups that have ‘engineered’ the relationship. Furthermore, U.S. foreign policy decisions are not based on domestic considerations – that is, the Israel lobby, the Jewish vote, or the pro-Israel press, as the March 2006 “working paper” by Harvard Professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer suggest.

"... Israel’s claim to a shared religious legacy has not been sufficient by itself to stimulate a more favorable American policy... only after the administration began to recognize the strategic dimension and to appreciate how shaky other pro-Western governments in the region actually were, that it started to adopt a more explicitly cooperative policy towards Israel."

Professor Robert J. Lieber, Georgetown University, 1998

---

Democracies Share Values

Despite the disparity in geographical and demographic size, the affinity between Israel and the United States draws on the fact that both countries are democracies and share a host of other enlightened values, including a similar defining ethos as nations of immigrants.

The United States does not give aid to Israel to convince Israelis and their leaders that American values are good, or to buy influence at the UN. That the two nations share many values and parallels in their historic development provides a natural and genuine bond. Both nations share Judeo-Christian values. They are committed to human rights and the principles of freedom, equality, and pluralism. And both nations were built by waves of refugees or persecuted immigrants who sought religious, political, or economic freedom. In fact, most American economic aid to Israel since 1948 has been earmarked to realize shared values.² Early in their relationship, the United States in 1951 gave Israel a $65 million long-term loan to absorb Jewish Displaced Persons (DPs) after the Holocaust, and other Jewish refugees from Arab countries. In the 1990s, the United States provided guarantees for commercial loans to help absorb a million Jewish immigrants from what was then the Soviet Union. Israel has consistently repaid such humanitarian loans in full, while other nations have defaulted on their debts to the United States.

On a personal basis, the two nations also share strong ties, as an overwhelming majority of Israelis have relatives and friends in the United States with whom they maintain close contact. In fact, the number of phone calls between Israel and the United States ranks as one of the highest per capita in the world. Despite continued violence in the Middle East, tourism has long played an important role between the two nations, with hundreds of thousands of Israelis and Americans visiting each other’s country yearly. U.S. border control figures for 2002 showed that worldwide the number of Israeli nationals entering the United States ranked 14th (up from 16th), with 263,097 entries. That represents Israeli businesspersons and tourists, including families on vacation or visiting relatives from a population of 6.3 million. To appreciate the numbers, other nations that rank higher include 10th-place Brazil with a population of 172 million and 9th-place Italy with 57 million people. Many Americans and Israelis study in each other’s country and even establish residency. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have settled in the United States,³ and more than 120,000 North Americans have settled permanently in Israel,⁴ which has the largest community of American expatriates after Italy.

---

Technology Trade Partners

America and Israel reap the rewards of a shared entrepreneurial spirit, interacting within a dense web of collaborative endeavors – from scientific research to joint development of advanced technologies.

America and Israel have developed a special economic relationship as well.

Like Americans, Israelis live in a milieu that encourages independent thinking, freedom to develop their talents, and an urge to innovate. As a result, Israel has pioneered advances in fields ranging from agriculture and biotechnology to telecommunications and homeland security. Recognizing that common trait, the United States and Israel have forged an intellectual, strategic alliance that operates on federal and state levels. The first alliance included joint research into bilateral research and development frameworks in agriculture and industrial technology. The programs are supported with matching funds from both governments. A groundbreaking free trade agreement in 1985 was followed by a U.S.-Israel high-tech pact in 1994, which encouraged individual states within the United States to establish their own partnerships with Israel. One of the oldest and most comprehensive involves North Carolina, which not only encourages trade, but also joint research and technology exchanges in textile technology, telecommunications, and autism,⁵ an unprecedented form of international cooperation.

In the past two decades, over 200 key US high-tech firms and corporations⁶ (Applied Materials, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, HP, CISCO, and others) have opened R&D facilities in Israel. In 1998 Israel was second only to the Silicon Valley in the number of startups founded annually. That made Israel a promising investment site too, and the number of active venture capital funds in Israel jumped from only one to 100 in the 1990s, most of which were largely or wholly funded with U.S. capital.⁷ In 2003, five Israeli firms made Forbes magazine’s list of the 50 most active venture capital funds in the world. Moreover, tens of thousands of Israelis hold key positions in American hi-tech companies.

In terms of trade, size can be deceiving: In 1996, Israel was the second-largest market for American goods in the Middle East, surpassed only by Saudi Arabia. Put another way, 6.2 million Israelis did more business with the United States than 60 million Egyptians and an oil-rich country such as Kuwait.⁸

U.S.-Israel trade in the 1990s soared from $6 billion to more than $20 billion,⁹ and between 1990 and 2000, U.S. exports to Israel increased by 243 percent,¹⁰ despite recessions and other adverse market or security conditions. The same cannot be said of Arab countries. A senior American official revealed that trade with Arab states dropped between 20 percent and 26 percent following September 11th,¹¹ due not only to objective economic conditions, but also because of anti-American sentiments, including “a backlash among Saudis” generated by the fact that “American media have sharply criticized the Saudi regime for tolerating the activities of militant Islamic groups and supporters of al-Qaeda.”¹²

---

Israel – The Cold War Warrior

Historically, Israel and America have had a host of overlapping strategic interests. During the Cold War, Israel played a key role containing Soviet penetration of the Middle East.

The Soviet Union posed a real threat to the United States during the Cold War, and in the Middle East, the Soviet Union eagerly armed radical Arab states and the PLO, helping to fuel instability that would hurt American interests. Israel repeatedly demonstrated the superiority of American weaponry in war after war, discrediting the Soviet’s weaponry, training, and sponsorship. Observers believe Israel’s role played a key factor in eroding the stature of the USSR and the decision of Arab states to turn to the West for defensive needs.¹³ One way Israel aided the United States was to allow Americans to scrutinize state-of-the-art Soviet technology, whose value to American security in the Cold War was priceless. Among those weapons were an Iraqi MiG-21 (whose pilot defected to Israel in a complicated undercover operation in 1966), a fully operational Russian-made ground-to-air missile system captured in the 1967 Six-Day War (that contributed greatly to protecting American pilots during the Vietnam War), and a Soviet radar system capable of detecting low-flying aircraft (literally lifted intact by two Israeli CH-53 helicopters from Egypt in 1969 during the War of Attrition).

In short, Israel has remained one of the few allies upon which the United States has always been able to count on in a crisis. Well before other Middle Eastern states curtailed their commitment to the 2003 coalition created to disarm Iraq, security expert and former U.S. Secretary of State Gen. (Ret.) Alexander Haig described Israel as “the largest pro-U.S. aircraft carrier, which doesn’t require U.S. personnel and can’t be sunk.” Indeed, Haifa has become one of the most hospitable (and safest) ports for the 6th Fleet. More recently, Israel has become a dependable base for pre-positioning emergency military stores in the Middle East, with the capability to provide close-by sophisticated medical services, if needed.

From a geopolitical standpoint, Israel and America for decades have had many overlapping strategic goals in the Middle East, long before terrorism became a threat to America’s own security. A case in point centers on Israel’s role in helping the West maintain Jordan’s integrity as a pro-Western, stable ally. In 1958, President Eisenhower wanted to cross Israeli airspace in order to save the Hashemite Kingdom; Israel granted the U.S./UK request. Then in 1970, at the request of President Nixon, Israel flexed its muscles as a deterrent, preventing pro-Soviet Syrian and PLO forces from toppling King Hussein and eliminating the need to send U.S. Marines into Jordan, a step America was forced to take in 1957 to ‘save’ Lebanon.

Although American and Israeli strategic interests overlap, they are not identical. At times, the United States has ordered, for example, temporary embargoes, reassessments, or postponements of munitions deliveries; yet the relationship has remained strong enough to ride out conflicting interests, avoiding communications breakdowns or a rupture of relations. In some cases – such as Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 – joint strategic interests have been recognized only in retrospect.

Following destruction of the reactor, the New York Times charged Israel with embracing a “code of terror” and claimed the raid was “inexcusable and short-sighted aggression”; the State Department spoke of a “reassessment” of relations with Israel;¹⁴ and the U.S. Ambassador to the UN chastised Israel, noting:

“I do think that one has to recognize that Israel had reason for concern in view of the past history of Iraq, which has never signed a cease-fire or recognized Israel as a nation... Nonetheless, we believe the means Israel chose to quiet its fears about the purpose of Iraq’s nuclear program have hurt, and not helped, the peace and security of the area. In my Government’s view diplomatic means available to Israel had not been exhausted and the Israeli action has damaged the regional confidence that is essential for the peace process to go forward.”¹⁵

However, after the 1991 Gulf War, then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney belatedly thanked Israel for destroying Iraq’s Osirak reactor,¹⁶ noting in a talk before the Center for Security Policy – a pro-Israel advocacy group – that the action, renounced at the time, had been central to the security of the United States:

“Let me … thank my good friend David Ivry [Commander of the Israel Air Force in 1981] for the action Israel took in 1981 with respect to the [Osirak] reactor.... There were many times during the course of the buildup in the Gulf and the subsequent conflict that I gave thanks for the bold and dramatic action that had been taken [by Israel] some ten years before.”

Since September 11th, and more recently as American forces face Iraqi insurgents, suicide bombers and the like, criticism of Israel’s measures to combat terrorism has waned. Targeting handlers, a tactic for which Israel has been roundly denounced, is being recognized as both operationally effective and the most moral choice under the circumstances.¹⁷

Indeed, Hamas agreed to discuss a hudna (temporary tactical truce) with the PA only after Hamas leaders became convinced that Washington had given Israel a green light to eliminate the Hamas “political” leadership. That implicit approval from Washington came after a botched attempt on Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi’s life in late June 2003, and warnings from President George W. Bush and the EU that Hamas would be targeted if it insisted on pursuing a fight.¹⁸

An in-depth study – Urban Warfare and the Lessons of Jenin¹⁹ – published in the summer of 2003 compares the conduct of urban warfare in the IDF’s Operation Defensive Shield Campaign (in Jenin) with the Russian invasion of Grozny (the capital of Chechnya), the NATO bombing of Kosovo, and the UN mission in Mogadishu (the capital of Somalia). It examined the circumstances, tactics and use of force, the scope of collateral damage and the response to civilian casualties, and who was to blame. What the study reveals is that not only was a gross double standard applied to Israel: it found that IDF operational tactics actually led to far fewer civilian casualties than was generally reported in the media, debunking the false charges of a massacre in Jenin. In fact, the study found that the Jenin battle took the lives of 23 Israeli soldiers and 52 Palestinian combatants and non-combatants, largely due to Israel’s decision notto use artillery and fighter planes. Instead, in most cases, Israel employed the unique tactic of limiting the firepower of its tanks to their machine gun turrets, not their cannon – employing armor-plated giant D-9 tractors instead to take out nests of resistance. That tactic – to try to limit civilian casualties – led to a decision by the U.S. army to acquire at least a dozen D-9 civilian bulldozers with Israeli-developed armor for use in Iraq.²⁰ Ironically, media reports²¹ that American and British forces are applying Israeli battle tactics to urban warfare were only yesterday branded as humiliating, or as excessive use of force when Israel moved into PA-controlled areas in response to the guerrilla war Arafat launched in September 2000.

Yet the probability and magnitude of a joint threat inherent in unwittingly creating a Palestinian rogue state does not seem to be fully apparent to American policy-makers.

Purdue Professor Louis René Beres, an expert in international law, believes that:

“any new state in Palestine would preoccupy Israeli military forces to a much greater extent than the current Intifada. Even if it were able to resist takeover by one of the other Islamic states in the region, either a takeover accomplished directly or by insurgent surrogates, Palestine would surely become a favored launching point for unconventional terrorism against Israel … [while] a state of Palestine would also provide a sympathetic host to various terrorist enemies of the United States. This would include Al Qaeda, which already has close ties to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah, and which could identify in Palestine, a replacement for Iraq.”²²

---

A Special Relationship Cultivated Over Time

A study of American policy toward Israel shows that the special relationship has been gradual: from ‘a moral stance’ (from 1948-1951) to a ‘strategic asset’ (in the 1970s) to ‘strategic cooperation’ (in 1981). America has come to the conclusion that when Israel is strong, not only does Israel benefit, but the United States does too.

Like a courtship, the relationship between the United States and Israel was a slow-developing affair.

Both America and Israel pride themselves as special countries. That is, both perceive they were founded on the basis of an ‘escape from European decadence,’ and both believe foreign policy should reflect moral choices – what is right, not just what is expedient and self-serving.²³ Yet the relationship is not based solely or primarily on lofty values. Various scholars who have studied U.S.-Israel ties say the special alliance emerged out of a realization that Israel was like a Rock of Gibraltar, a strategic asset in a sea of unstable regimes. Robert J. Lieber, writing in the scholarly journal MERIA.²⁴ Said:

“Israel’s claim to a shared religious legacy had not been sufficient by itself to stimulate a more favorable American policy…Instead it was only after the administration began to recognize the strategic dimension and to appreciate how shaky other pro-Western governments in the region actually were, that it started to adopt a more explicitly cooperative policy towards Israel.”²⁵

Already in the late 1950s under Eisenhower and the early 1960s under Kennedy, America began to view Israel as an asset, rather than a liability or a burden²⁶ that received American support in the first years of statehood as part of the ‘moral dimension’ to politics which sets America apart from the cynical brand of realpolitik practiced by Europe.

The real sea change came after the Six-Day War “when U.S. officials and analysts began to view the Jewish state as a major regional power, with assets and capabilities that could advance U.S. interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.”²⁷ That position was first expressed in 1968 when Congress declared that it was committed to maintaining Israel’s “qualitative military edge” in the face of Soviet rearmament of the Arabs.

By the late 1970s, Israel’s status was elevated to that of a ‘strategic asset,’²⁸ particularly after the Shah of Iran’s collapse left America without reliable, stable regional allies.²⁹

Then in the early 1980s came a watershed: the November 1981 Memorandum of Understanding on ‘strategic cooperation’ formally recognized Israel as a strategic ally of the United States. Other memoranda followed that institutionalized the relationship in a series of working frameworks: to counter the Soviet threat, oversee security assistance, pre-position military equipment in Israel, conduct joint training exercises, and jointly develop weapon systems. The most recent cooperative framework was established in 1996: a Joint-Anti-Terrorism Working Group, whose importance and scope have only grown since September 11th.

Israel has always been a stable American ally, but since September 11th, American-Israeli collaboration to combat mutual threats has taken a quantum leap forward.

A T-shirt sold in Israel sports a fighter plane and the slogan – “Don’t Worry America, Israel is Behind You.” Although designed as humorous pop-art for the tourist trade, September 11th has transformed its underlying message into a serious reality.

As preparations for a showdown on Iraq materialized in the early months of 2003, the community of nations at the UN sought to contain and restrict American power. Charter members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) such as France and Germany failed to come to the defense of the United States, and countries in the Middle East that the United States had courted for decades and considered key geopolitical allies – specifically, Turkey and Saudi Arabia – bailed out at the last moment. Only Israel remained one of America’s most trustworthy, consistent and important allies, even though many of its contributions to the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq remain undisclosed. Against the backdrop of “the emptiness of old alliances,” Israel’s record – at the UN³⁰ and in other domains – has demonstrated its bond with the United States.

---

A Valued American Partner

America benefits from Israel’s experience, innovations, and willingness to share its expertise. In the war against terrorism, Israel is a valued U.S. partner who has saved American lives and bolstered America’s defense.

While Israel has been the single largest recipient of U.S. aid since the 1970s, that support has established a two-way street and the United States now cashes in on Israel’s experience and know-how.

As fate would have it, Israel has more experience than any other nation in the world when it comes to combating terrorism. That expertise – in terms of technology, tactics, and administration – is playing an increasing role both in protecting America’s home front against terrorist attacks and waging wars with rogue states that support terrorism.

The experience of two members of an American rescue squad is instructive. They spent two weeks in Israel learning how Israelis handle mass casualty events, noting that their Jerusalem counterparts had handled more than 1,000 terrorist incidents, including suicide bombings, car bombings, package bombings, and sniper shootings in 18 months, while an American rescue squad might expect perhaps one such incident in a lifetime.³¹

Militarily, the relationship between the two nations is also more complex than is generally understood.

Few know that nearly 75 percent of U.S. military aid to Israel (and even more in the not-so-distant past) goes directly toward purchase of products made in the USA – from military uniforms to supersonic aircraft. Thus, most U.S. aid effectively amounts to a transfer of federal funds that are pumped back into the American economy, from textile to defense industries.

But because of Israel’s technological sophistication – equaled by only a handful of nations – it is more than another client purchasing American military equipment off the shelf. A 2003 evaluation by the World Economic Forum ranked Israel second only to the United States as a technological powerhouse. As a result, Israel designs and builds its own tanks, and has launched its own spy satellites. Often, Israel makes changes in American-made systems to upgrade their overall performance or address specific conditions faced in Middle East battlefield conditions, all of which has growing relevance to the U.S. military since September 11th.

For historical reasons, Israel also has been forced to develop many of its own top-of-the-line defense systems, many of which enhanced America’s military prowess, particularly in the war with Iraq.³² Those innovations included Popeye missiles on B-52s, Hunter unmanned aerial vehicles, and the Pioneer, used by the Marines to scout Iraqi defenses.

In addition, America and Israel have developed a unique form of collaboration in which the United States underwrites the cost of developing expensive defense systems based on Israeli know-how such as the Arrow missile system designed to protect Israel’s population centers and American forces abroad.

In short, the United States is as much a favored ally of Israel as Israel is a favored ally of the United States, given the fact that Israel provides America with unique scientific data, research and development, and intelligence. George Keegan, a former U.S. Air Force Intelligence director, once dubbed Israel “equal to five CIAs in terms of intelligence sharing and power projection.”³³ All these factors explain why Israel is one of five U.S. allies involved in a technical support counterterrorism working group³⁴ designed to provide rapid research development and prototyping for urgently needed tools to beef up America’s security in the wake of September 11th.

The special relationship extends to other areas as well. Israeli physicians, for example, train American physicians in lifesaving medical procedures to treat patients who suffer multiple wounds from suicide bombings. American hospital administrators are studying innovative solutions adopted in Israel that address a surge in demand for hospital emergency services after terrorist attacks, and emergency medical physicians and nurses are receiving hands-on experience in triage in case of future terrorist attacks.³⁵ Parallel to this, private Israeli firms are addressing a host of solutions related to terrorist attacks, ranging from innovative escape equipment from tall buildings to anti-ground-to-air missile systems for civilian aircraft.

---

Support for Israel is Across the Board

For decades, Americans from all backgrounds have exhibited strong support for Israel. In the aftermath of September 11th, U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said ruefully: “The conflict Israel is fighting against terrorism is coming closer to home.”³⁶ The day after devastating attacks on New York and Washington, columnist George Will wrote: “Tuesday morning Americans were drawn into the world that Israelis live in every day.”³⁷ An ABC News survey conducted in early October 2001 found that 81 percent of Americans favor maintaining or deepening strong ties with Israel; another poll, conducted for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal in early November 2001, found similarly high support for Israel (77 percent), with 28 percent of Americans calling for even closer ties to Israel.³⁸

An annual Gallup Poll conducted in early 2003 showed 64 percent of Americans view Israel in a favorable light, and a majority (58 percent) said their sympathies lie more with the Israelis than with the Palestinian Arabs.³⁹ America’s new concerns about terrorism might explain Americans’ new understanding of what Israelis face, but support for Israel has been strong in the United States for decades.

Indeed, since Gallup began polling Americans in 1988 about Israel, results have consistently shown sympathy toward the tiny nation, with Americans’ support of Israel increasing when the two nations share a threat from the same enemy.

Similar results come from a 1999 study⁴⁰ of attitudes of the public and American leaders conducted by Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (or CCFR).⁴¹Its 1995 study, found that 64 percent of the public identified an American vital interest with Israel, not far behind Great Britain (69 percent) and Germany (66 percent); by 1999, the identification factor for Israel climbed to 69 percent, equal to Canada and greater than Great Britain (66 percent) and Germany (60 percent). Among American leaders (which included members of the executive branch, Congress, and other designated movers and shakers), responses were even more favorable: 86 percent in 1995 and 1999 said they believe the United States has a vital interest in Israel, up from 78 percent in 1991. The only nations to rank higher than Israel were major global powers (China, Japan, Russia), immediate neighbors (Canada and Mexico), or those controlling a strategic commodity (Saudi Arabia).

The Harris Poll® #62, of September 1, 2004 asks a nationwide cross section of Americans how they feel about a list of countries with a scale varying from "close ally" at one end to "unfriendly" at the other. The poll found that Israel, Britain, Canada and Australia make the top list of closest U.S. Allies.

That kinship with Israel apparently reflects both American empathy and a growing sense that the two peoples might face a common threat. The increase in Americans’ support was paralleled by a sharp rise in their identification that international terrorism posed a threat to vital U.S. interests (84 percent of the public saying so; 61 percent of American leaders). Similar to Gallup’s findings, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found that Americans’ “warm feelings” toward Israel have remained constant, based on its “Feelings Thermometer,” which measures Americans’ affinity to 25 countries. That strong support can be found among both Jews and Christians, according to a recent Tarrance Group poll commissioned by the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. While 85 percent of American Jews support Israel, 65 percent of conservative churchgoing respondents were pro-Zionist. Moreover, throughout Israel’s existence, U.S. presidents have spoken out in support of the Middle Eastern nation, as has Congress. As with any relationship, American and Israeli administrations don’t always see eye to eye, yet most disagreements have been tied to means, not goals, as both sides struggle over what they believe is the best way to achieve a lasting peace. Yet despite their differences, every American president has clearly voiced support of Israel since the state’s establishment in 1948:

"I had faith in Israel before it was established; I have faith in it now. I believe it has a glorious future before it – not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization. Harry S Truman

"Our forces saved the remnant of the Jewish people of Europe for a new life and a new hope in the reborn Land of Israel. Along with all men of good will, I salute the young state and wish it well. Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Israel was not created in order to disappear – Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom. John F. Kennedy

"The United States and Israel share many common objectives … chief of which is the building of a better world in which every nation can develop its resources and develop them in freedom and peace. Lyndon B. Johnson

"Americans admire a people who can scratch a desert and produce a garden. The Israelis have shown qualities that Americans identify with: guts, patriotism, idealism, a passion for freedom. I have seen it. I know. I believe that. Richard M. Nixon

"My commitment to the security and future of Israel is based upon basic morality as well as enlightened self-interest. Our role in supporting Israel honors our own heritage. Gerald Ford

"The survival of Israel is not just a political issue, it is a moral imperative. That is my deeply held belief and it is the belief that is shared by the vast majority of the American people. … A strong secure Israel is not just in Israel’s interest. It’s in the interest of the United States and in the interest of the entire free world. Jimmy Carter

"In Israel, free men and women are every day demonstrating the power of courage and faith. Back in 1948 when Israel was founded, pundits claimed the new country could never survive. Today, no one questions that. Israel is a land of stability and democracy in a region of tyranny and unrest. Ronald Reagan

"For more than 40 years, the United States and Israel have enjoyed a friendship built on mutual respect and commitment to democratic principles. Our continuing search for peace in the Middle East begins with a recognition that the ties uniting our two countries can never be broken. George W. Bush⁴²

"The United States admires Israel for all it has overcome and for all that it has accomplished. We are proud of the strong bond we have forged with Israel, based on our shared values and ideals. That unique relationship will endure just as Israel has endured. Bill Clinton⁴³

"We will speak up for our principles and we will stand up for our friends in the world. And one of our most important friends is the State of Israel. … My Administration will be steadfast in supporting Israel against terrorism and violence, and in seeking the peace for which all Israelis pray. George W. Bush"

As stated, the U.S. Congress also has been a stalwart friend of Israel, whose bipartisan support has only deepened over the past 58 years. Among the major milestones that reflect a host of mutual interests and shared values:

In 1922, “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of tile United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the Holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.”

In 1951, approval of the first aid package to Israel – $65 million to help Israel take in Holocaust survivors and Jews expelled from Arab nations.

In 1968, a Congressional declaration pledging to maintain Israel’s “qualitative edge” through military aid (a commitment that has been maintained ever since).

In 1974, landmark legislation (supported by 76 senators and 288 representatives) that denied the Soviet Union trading privileges until it allowed its Jewish citizens to emigrate to Israel – a move that miraculously parted the Iron Curtain as if it was the Red Sea, allowing Jews to leave the Soviet Union in the early 1980s, a majority of whom immigrated to Israel.

In 1983, a Congressional grant of “strategic asset” status to Israel.

In 1985, Congressional approval of $3 billion in foreign aid, for the first time in the form of a grant rather than a loan, a change in assistance reflecting the deepening U.S.-Israel tie.

In 1988, passage of a Memorandum of Agreement recognizing Israel as “a major non-NATO ally of the United States.”

In 1990, Congressional recognition that “Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel” and support of Jerusalem “remaining an undivided city” open to people of all faiths.

In 1995, passage of the “Jerusalem Embassy Act” requiring relocation of the U.S. Embassy and its transfer from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

In 1999, a joint resolution of Congress expressing support for final political status of PA territory being determined solely though negotiation and agreement between Israel and the PA.

In 2000, a joint resolution of Congress stipulating steps the United States would take, should a Palestinian state be unilaterally declared, including non-recognition, prohibition of assistance, opposition to international aid, and other steps.

In 2001, a joint resolution of Congress expressing solidarity with Israel in the common struggle against terrorism and condemning Palestinian use of terrorism – demanding the PA take effective action to eradicate this scourge and urging the President to take parallel steps to do the same.

In 2002, passage of joint resolution of Congress stating that Israel and the United States are engaged in “a common struggle with terrorism and are on the front line of a conflict thrust upon them” and reiterating that the Congress remains committed to Israel’s right to self-defence.

In 2004, passage of the concurrent resolution in the 108th Congress 2D Session. Stating that the United States strongly committed to the security of Israel and its well-being as a Jewish state; sees as unrealistic the return of Israel to the armistice line of 1949 and that settling of Palestinian refugees will be through the establishment of a permanent alternative rather than in Israel.

Those examples of advocacy for Israel illustrate deep-seated, genuine American interests more than the influence of organized lobbying, donations, and the domestic considerations of getting re-elected.

Dr. Robert J. Lieber, a professor of government and public service at Georgetown University, studied the development of the special relationship between the United States and Israel as it has evolved. In an article published in 1995⁴⁴ in the scholarly journal Middle East Review of International Affairs, Lieber found that:

“The United States-Israeli special relationship is the product of a complex mixture of causal factors and incorporates historical memory, religious values, societal ties, considerations of regional stability and American national interest. Domestic politics within the United States … and personal relationships [have an impact], … but … it is these longer term causes that ultimately have come to matter most in shaping the relationships and course of American policy toward Israel.”

His conclusions echo the findings of two previous works by other scholars – a 1985 work by Steven Spiegel and a 1990 work by A. F. K. Organski.⁴⁵ In his work The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Making America's Middle East Policy, From Truman to Reagan, Spiegel found that the decisive factors setting American policy are “the principle policy-makers and their ideas,” based on their consciences and “generally for reasons of state, largely unrelated to domestic politics and often in defiance of domestic groups.” U.S. policy was the upshot of "the basic assumptions of the President, the individuals on whom he relies for advice, and the resulting decision-making system which converts ideas into policies.” In his study of Middle East policy during the Cold War, Organski stressed that the deepening relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and policy decisions vis-à-vis Israel were “in the main … made by presidents and presidential foreign policy elites both by themselves and for reasons entirely their own.” The special relationship was “based on a sober assessment of foreign policy” and “Israel’s utility” – not domestic or electoral considerations.⁴⁶ In other words, advocacy, the media, academia, and even public opinion came into the equation only when they were believed to be genuine and in keeping with American interests.

Both studies break the myth that powerful vested-interest groups have ‘engineered’ the relationship or that foreign policy decisions are based on domestic considerations – that is, the Israel lobby, the Jewish vote, a pro-Israel press, etc. All three scholars found that elected officials and senior civil servants formulated American policy based on their foreign policy assessments.

---

Democratic Reform and Fighting Terror – A Common Goal in a Volatile Region

The United States and Israel share a core strategic need: democratic reform in the Middle East that can bring peace, and change the political environment that breeds terrorists and funds terrorism.

Both Israel and the United States have a stake in promoting stability and achieving peace in the Middle East through democratization.

Many Arab nations are volatile and their leaders bellicose not because of Israel and the so-called Palestinian problem, but rather because of three interconnected factors: undemocratic regimes, polities that are split by fierce ethnic rivalries, and a lack of tolerance for the Other. What they share are societies that are stagnant and that trail behind all other developing countries.⁴⁷

The failure of Israel’s Arab neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist is the result of these factors. These factors are the root cause of the Middle East’s endless political feuds, intervention of countries in their neighbor’s domestic affairs, civil wars and full-blown wars with one another and with oppressed minorities. Their ‘feud with Israel’ is only the tip of the iceberg.

To stay in power, Arab leaders fan anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli, and antisemitic feelings to deflect criticism of their regimes.

America needs democratization in the Middle East because after September 11th, it became clear that the social and political stagnation afflicting the region has become a strategic threat to Americans and much of the world. What fuels the global terrorism network are radical Middle Eastern leaders’ cynical redirection of frustrations toward the West, coupled with their exportation of and support for radical elements across the globe. Israel also needs democratization in the Middle East because its core problem is much broader than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian clashes with Israel dominate television footage and public debate. As a result, a form of myopic vision has enveloped the peace process, which assumes that solving the Palestinian problem will lead to all other Arab states accepting Israel and normalizing relations. But in reality, Israel faces an Arab-Israeli conflict, not a Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The crux of the problem is twofold: popular sentiment and the behavior of Arab leadership. In a broad-based way, Arab society opposes accepting Israel – a non-Muslim entity – as a neighbor in what they perceive as ‘their’ Middle East. Popular opposition blocks steps toward genuine normalization and feeds on rabid antisemitism. Autocratic Arab leaders and other elites within Arab society also fear the masses and eagerly stoke the flames of popular frustration by exploiting the “antisemitic” scapegoat. That is why the Palestinian refugee problem has been kept alive for more than 58 years while all other refugee problems from the same era were long ago settled. That is also why hatred of Israel is in the interest of many Middle Eastern regimes.

For Israel, real peace requires a long haul without any shortcuts, and that means that any blueprint for peace that is to succeed – the Road Map or any other scheme in the future, must begin with a genuine democratization of the Middle East.

Only democracies perceive peace as a strategic goal and a valuable commodity. That is why a Palestinian state will have to become a true and free democracy before it becomes independent. Only democracies perceive peace as a strategic goal and a valuable commodity. That is why a Palestinian state will have to become a true democracy before it becomes independent.

---

¹ For two excellent presentations of the stages in the ‘special relationship’ see Robert J. Lieber, “U.S.-Israel Relations Since 1948,” Middle East Review of International Affairs(September 1998) at:
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1998/issue3/lieber.pdf;
A. F. K. Organski, The $36 Billion Bargain: Strategy and Politics in U.S. Assistance to Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), reviewed by Daniel Pipes at:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/604.
² Two major exceptions were assistance in redeploying Israeli forces and rebuilding air bases in the Negev after the withdrawal from Sinai following peace with Egypt, and assistance in fighting hyper-inflation in the mid-1980s.
³ The Ministry of Absorption estimates between 376,000-488,000 Israeli citizens are presently living in the United States, the majority as permanent residents, cited in “The Wandering Israeli,” Yediot Aharonot, July 20, 2003
⁴ Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel, 2003 data.
⁵ For profiles of cooperation at the regional and state level, see Daniella Ashkenazy, “Israel and the Southeast Connection,” Link magazine (December 1994): pp. 41-74; “Exchanging more than Handshakes,” Link magazine (July-August 1998): pp 31-48.
⁶ Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer in a speech before the Israel-American Chamber of Commerce, September 4, 2001, at:
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/mission/amb/amcham.html.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ New Global Economy Trade Map 1996, Center for Strategic and International Studies at:
http://www.csis.org/nge/trade/tr_midea.html.
⁹ Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer in a speech before the Israel-American Chamber of Commerce, September 4, 2001 at:
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/mission/amb/amcham.html.
¹⁰ Nader Habibi, “A Decade of Growing U.S. Trade with the Middle East,” Global Insight at:
http://www.globalinsight.com/Perspective/PerspectiveDetail252.htm.
¹¹ “U.S.-Arab trade drops 26 percent since 9/11 attacks,” World Tribune.com, September 16, 2002 at:
http://216.26.163.62/2002/ss_mideast_09_16.html.
¹² Nader Habibi, “A Decade of Growing U.S. Trade with the Middle East,” Global Insight at:
http://www.globalinsight.com/Perspective/PerspectiveDetail252.htm.
¹³ “Gerald M. Steinberg, “Israel and the United States: Can the Special Relationship Survive the New Strategic Environment?” Middle East Review of International Affairs(November 1998) at:
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1998/issue4/jv2n4a7.html.
¹⁴ George Will, “The F-16 Solution,” Washington Post, November 1, 2001 at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A21270-2001Oct31&notFound=true.
¹⁵ See UN transcripts/PV.2288 of 19 June 1981 at:
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/4aed70baa0b37b53052567fd00762f30!OpenDocument.
¹⁶ See “Cheney to Israel: Thanks for Destroying Iraqi Reactor,” JINSA, October 28, 1991 at:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=91-P_110.
¹⁷ See for instance, “The Predator,” CBS News – “60 Minutes,” January 2003 at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/07/60II/main535569.shtml
which focused on use of unmanned reconnaissance drones to “hunt down human prey” and relay the position to an airborne gunship – a tactic used by the CIA in Yemen to ‘take out’ five al-Qaeda operatives.
¹⁸ Khaled Abu Toameh, “Cautious celebration,” Jerusalem Post, July 3, 2003 at:
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview/content.php?type=article&issue=spring04/&name=levine.
¹⁹ Yagil Henkin, “Urban Warfare and the Lesson of Jenin,” Azure (Summer 2003) at
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ntTdhnu0aVYJ:www.azure.co.il/15-henkin.htm+Yagil+Henkin,+Urban+Warfare+and+the+Lesson+of+Jenin&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1.
²⁰ Cited in James Dunnigan, “Invading Iraq, When and How,” September 16, 2002 at:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030406.asp
also James Dunnigan, “Urban Warfare Made Easier,” April 6, 2003 at:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030406.asp.
²¹ See for instance Amman correspondent Justin Huggler, “Israelis trained U.S. troops in Jenin-style urban warfare,” Independent, March 29, 2003 at:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=391823.
²² Louis René Beres, “After Iraq: President Bush, a Palestinian State and Regional Nuclear War,” May 2003 at:
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Beres-2003-03-28.asp.
²³ Middle East Review of International Affairs (September 1998).
²⁴ Middle East Review of International Affairs (September 1998).
²⁵ Ibid.
²⁶ Abraham Ben-Zvi, John F. Kennedy and the Politics of Arms Sales to Israel, Frank Cass, 2002 and Avraham Ben-Zvi, Decade of Transition - Eisenhower, Kennedy and the Origins of the American-Israeli Alliance, at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005R201/bridgebooks/104-2676852-3436726
²⁷ Gerald Steinberg, “Israel and the United States: Can the Special Relationship Survive the New Strategic Environment?” Middle East Review of International Affairs (December 4, 1998).
²⁸ Ibid.
²⁹ Ibid.
³⁰ Barbara Amiel, “The UN is fast becoming a threat to world peace,” Daily Telegraph, February 4, 2003.
³¹ Cited in Jeff Forster and Mike Taigman, “We have no choices: EMS in Israel,” Emergency Medical Services at:
http://www.magendavidadom.org/emsmagazine1.html.
³² For an overview of Israeli weapons systems in the U.S. arsenal, see “Israeli-Made Arms Commonplace in U.S. Arsenal,” JINSA, April 2, 2003 at:
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/155/documentid/1964/history/3,658,155,1964.
³³ Yoram Ettinger, “Ties with Israel – What’s in it for the U.S.?” Ariel Center for Policy Research (March 13, 2001) at:
http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/clk102.html.
³⁴ For information on TSWG, see Roxana Tiron, “Small Agency Gets Big Bucks For Anti-Terrorism Programs,” National Defense (May 2002) at:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/May/Small_Agency.htm.
³⁵ For a description of a 14-day sojourn in Jerusalem, see Jeff Forster and Mike Taigman, “We have no choices: EMS in Israel” at:
http://www.magendavidadom.org/emsmagazine1.html.
³⁶ Citizens Advisory Board Holds First Meeting with Senate Caucus Members, U.S./Israel Congressional Security Cooperation Caucus Reporter, March 1, 2003.
³⁷ For an overview of changing attitudes and deepening ties on all levels – among architects of American policy, opinion-shapers, and the public-at-large in the wake of September 11th, see David Hazony, “Israel, America, and the War on Terror,” Azure (Winter 2002) at:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/azure/12/12-edit.html.
³⁸ Ibid.
³⁹ Gallup Poll, “Americans’ Views of Israel More Positive Than Last Year,” February 19, 2003 at:
http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=7837&pg=1.
⁴⁰ A year before 9/11, when leaders ranked terrorism 7th in terms of foreign policy problems, with economics heading the list.
⁴¹ John E. Reilly, ed., American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1999).
⁴² Quotes from “What Israel Means to Me” – America’s Presidents Speak About Israel. The American Jewish Committee at:
http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=854099&ct=1126195.
⁴³ U.S. President Bill Clinton to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the 50th anniversary of Israel’s independence, April 30, 1998.
⁴⁴ Robert J. Lieber, “U.S.-Israel Relations Since 1948,” Middle East Review of International Affairs (September 1998) at:
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1998/issue3/lieber.pdf.
⁴⁵ Steven L. Spiegel, “The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Marking America’s Middle East Policy from Truman to Reagan” University of Chicago Press, 1985. For an overview, see Daniel Pipe’s review in Commentary (October 1985) at:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/34;
See A.F.K. Organski, $36 Billion Bargain: Strategy and Politics in U.S. Assistance to Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), reviewed by Daniel Pipes at:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/604.
⁴⁶ Ibid.
⁴⁷ For an overview of the report and its significance, see “How the Arabs Compare: Arab Human Development Report 2002,” Middle East Quarterly (Fall 2002) at:
http://www.meforum.org/article/513 - _ftn8.
For the full report, see the UN Website:
http://www.undp.org.sa/Reports/AHDR%202003%20-%20English.pdf.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/NOQ_OnlineEdition/Chapter17/unitedstatesisrael1.htm

UN condemns Israel 6 times, declares ‘Year of Palestine’

UN condemns Israel 6 times, declares ‘Year of Palestine’

Hillel Neuer

Resolutions absurdly call for Golan residents to be handed over to murderous Assad regime; Ban Ki-moon disowns interpreter’s hot mic critique of UN bias

The UN General Assembly yesterday condemned Israel in six resolutions, the most significant of which declares 2014 a “Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian people.”

The new year is now liable to bring escalated politicization within UN agencies worldwide, doing nothing to help Palestinians or Israelis on the ground, while inflicting yet further damage to the world body’s effectiveness and credibility.

The one-sided resolutions were adopted in tandem with the UN’s observance Monday of its annual “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.”

Regrettably, that highly politicized event was praised by British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant as equivalent in importance to the International Day on the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Yesterday’s six resolutions endorsed the UN’s infrastructure of anti-Israel demonization, which includes an entire UN staff division dedicated to promoting an anti-Israel narrative with conferences held around the world.

The UN’s drumbeat of excessive, disproportionate and one-sided condemnations of Israel causes polarization, threatens to push the parties further apart, and is counterproductive to the already fragile peace process.

The UN General Assembly’s lopsided adoption, by the end of this year, of an expected 21 resolutions on Israel, and only four on the rest of the world combined, eclipses the plight of millions of truly needy human rights victims in places like China, Russia, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia, whose critical issues are being treated with indifference, if not contempt—indeed the UN just elected each of those tyrannies to its 47-nation Human Rights Council.

Consider the absurdity and hypocrisy in just two of today’s resolutions:

• Golan Resolution: This is the second UNGA resolution this month devoted to the supposedly urgent situation of human rights in the Golan Heights, whose residents in fact enjoy normal lives, versus only one resolution on neighboring Syria which, according to the UN itself, has murdered more than 100,000 of its own people. At a time when Israeli hospitals are treating Syrian refugees fleeing mass slaughter, it is irrational for the UN to condemn Israel—and to do so 20 times more than Syria. And for the UN to demand today that Israel hand residents of the Golan over to Assad’s murderous rule is both immoral and absurd.

• Palestinian Resolutions: It’s far from clear why the UN’s only resolutions for self-determination are devoted to the Palestinians, when Israel has already acknowledged that right, and after the UN already recognized a ‘State of Palestine’ last year. Meanwhile, the UN has failed to adopt any resolution supporting self-determination for oppressed peoples such as the Tibetans, whose basic rights as a minority, let alone as a nation, are brutally and systematically trampled by China.

UN CHIEF REJECTS INTERPRETER’S ‘HOT MIC’ CRITIQUE OF ISRAEL BIAS

In his message to yesterday’s UN ceremony for Palestinians, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticized Israel only. He failed to condemn the recent spate of Palestinian terror attacks, including those that took the lives of 19-year-old Eden Atias and 20-year-old Tomer Hazan.

In a related development, Ban has categorically rejected the now-famous UN interpreter’s criticism of anti-Israel bias, caught on an open microphone.

Ban’s spokesperson responded to a reporter’s question seeking the UN chief’s views on the gaffe — the video of which Prime Minister Netanyahu played to his cabinet meeting last week — by saying on November 19th that “the Secretary-General respects the right of the Member States as they move forward on their resolutions” which, he insisted, “need to be upheld by all countries.”

Given that Ban Ki-moon has himself criticized the singling out of Israel by UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council, I am disappointed that he is rejecting and refusing to acknowledge the simple truth of the UN interpreter’s candid and entirely correct observations.

After all, if the secretary-general could voice disappointment at the Human Rights Council’s “decision to single out Israel as the only specific regional item on its agenda, given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world,” why can’t he endorse the virtually identical sentiment expressed by the interpreter at this year’s absurd amount of General Assembly resolutions singling out Israel?

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/un-condemns-israel-6-times-declares-year-of-palestine/

The motives and objectives of US policy toward Israel

The motives and objectives of US policy toward Israel

With the US jumping to promote an interim agreement with Iran which weakens sanctions — probably forever — and does little or nothing to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, many people are asking “what are the intentions of the Obama Administration in the Middle East?” The answer will be particularly important to Israelis, who see the development of an Iranian weapon as an existential threat.

Israelis also wonder about US policy concerning the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs, which seems to be moving to a far more anti-Israel place than before. The idea expressed by UNSC resolution 242 and accepted by previous administrations, that secure borders need to be negotiated between the states in the area, is being replaced by the radical position that the 1949 armistice lines are the legitimate borders of the state of Israel. The administration has also studiously avoided taking a position (the Bush Administration did) against the extraordinary and unacceptable demand for a “right of return” to Israel for the descendants of Arab refugees.

While it might have been possible in the past to attribute a tilt against Israel to pressure from the oil-producing Gulf states, in particular Saudi Arabia, this explanation has less force today as the US approaches energy independence. And of course the Sunni Arab regimes are even more threatened by Iran than Israel.

It is also hard to explain the administration’s cooperation with Russia to ensure the maintenance of the Assad regime in Syria, and its status as an Iranian satellite, or its support for the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — something that undermined one of the bases of Israel’s regional security, the Camp David treaty. Although the army can’t be called pro-Israel, it is at least pragmatic and not interested in upsetting the status quo.

So what in fact are the motives and objectives here (assuming that there is more behind our policy than ignorance and incompetence) as they affect Israel? I believe that there are two motivations here, one pragmatic and one ideological.

The pragmatic aspect is that the Obama Administration has decided that Islamism and in particular revolutionary Shiite Islamism, is the strong horse in the region, and it is placing its bets on it. The expectation in Washington is that Iraq and Syria will be firmly in the Iranian column, soon followed by Lebanon. The influence of the House of Saud will be greatly diminished, and perhaps the royal family will be overthrown. In overwhelmingly Sunni nations, like Jordan and Egypt, conservative governments will be replaced by Islamist ones (this has so far proven false in Egypt, where the Islamists took power but were unable to hang on).

The US considers itself at war with Al Qaeda, which is just fine with the Iranians (it fails to understand, though, that Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Turkish AKP — which it supports — agree on ideology; their differences are mostly about tactics).

The administration sees Iran’s nuclear weapon as a fait accompli. It thinks that it can establish a relationship with Iran that will replace the one it has with the doomed Saudis and enable it to exercise some influence in the region. Failing that, it hopes that it can appease Iran (which is already a world power in the field of terrorism) to prevent terrorist attacks against its interests and even the US itself. It has almost certainly been told by the Iranians that they will hold the US responsible for Israeli actions against Iran, and therefore considers preventing Israel from striking its nuclear facilities a top priority.

Israel is diametrically opposed to most of these policies. It supports conservative Arab regimes in Jordan and Egypt. It has fought a war with Iran’s subsidiary, Hizballah, and will almost certainly fight another. It opposes the spread of Iranian revolutionary Islamism and considers an Iranian nuclear weapon unacceptable. No wonder Israel is a “key target” for US intelligence, along with China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Cuba!

Turning to ideology, Aaron David Miller (no Zionist ideologue!) said that “Obama really is different” from previous presidents. He has a perspective “much closer to the Palestinians than to Israel,” and it shows, in his policies and in his appointments. This is not at all surprising, given Obama’s associations and education. I think it is probably true that he accepts the Palestinian (actually KGB!) narrative of an oppressed indigenous people displaced by a colonial power — it’s certainly what he would have heard at Columbia.

There is no doubt that in addition to pragmatic attitudes, there is also a belief on the part of administration officials that the moral high ground belongs to Third World nations, to ‘black and brown peoples’ who have been historically oppressed and colonized by the West. I would go so far as to say that they see Zionism as racism, and view the creation of a Jewish nation-state as a mistake.

I don’t have the time and space to go into this here, but the ideology is part and parcel with the wildly inconsistent attitudes of many Americans of their generation, who seem to think that at the same time a) nothing is more important than race or ethnicity; b) racism is evil and it is racist to treat people differently in any way because of race or ethnicity; and c) some peoples have been oppressed and therefore are exempt from all of the above.

The combination of what they see as realpolitik and ‘idealism’ make them profoundly unsympathetic to Israel. But I don’t they think they want to see another genocide (which in fact is the goal of many of Israel’s enemies). They do not wish for a nuclear war in the Middle East (although  their policies may bring one about).

The main objective of American policy toward Israel is to limit her freedom of action. To that end they want to weaken her by forcing her back to indefensible borders, to strengthen her enemies so that she will be deterred from taking action that might upset US relationships, and to make her more amenable to US pressure. In addition, they will get a warm feeling from obtaining ‘justice’ for the Palestinians.

At the same time, they would like to change Israel’s nature, from a Jewish state, a nation-state of the Jewish people, to something more like the US. In the strange world of political correctness, Jews are ‘whites’ and Arabs are ‘people of color’ (tell this to an Ethiopian Jew). While they see Jewish nationalism (Zionism) as racist, they accept Palestinian nationalism as legitimate for an ‘oppressed’ people.

All of this is intended to be a peaceful process.

If they succeed, they will destroy Zionism as well as Israel’s ability to defend herself. She will have neither the desire to survive nor the means. In the end either the state will fade away gently, with Jewish Israelis fleeing to a new diaspora, or be destroyed in war and genocide.

Israel can short-circuit this process by asserting its right to self-defense and attacking Hizballah and the Iranian nuclear facilities. The dangers inherent in doing this are obvious, but one has to weigh them in comparison to those of inaction.

http://fresnozionism.org/2013/11/the-motives-and-objectives-of-us-policy-toward-israel/

What is there about “Death to America” that you don’t understand?

What is there about “Death to America” that you don’t understand?

Iranians celebrate anniversary of 1979 takeover of US embassy by burning flags, shouting “Death to America” earlier this month.

The US has often been criticized for supporting unsavory regimes for pragmatic reasons. Chiang Kai-shek and the Shah of Iran, for example, were not paragons of democracy and liberalism, but they were anti-communist. Remember Fulgencio Batista, Castro’s predecessor? And don’t forget that we were for Saddam Hussein before we were against him.

But the Obama Administration has opened a whole new chapter. By supporting the Islamist regimes of Mohammed Morsi and Sayyid Ali Khamenei, the US helps regimes that not only oppress their own population and threaten their neighbors, but make no secret of their hatred and desire to destroy the US itself.

Morsi is gone, thank goodness, but the recent agreement which rescues Iran’s economy and negates six UN Security Council resolutions against its enrichment of uranium is a shocking example of feeding — with nuclear arms — the mouth that wants to bite you.

This is not just about Israel, folks. The German newspaper Die Welt reports that Iran is building missile bases in Venezuela. If true, this means that Iran would have the capability to hit the US with missiles that they already have!

Even a single small nuclear bomb detonated at high altitude could do enormous damage to our national infrastructure as an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapon. Such a weapon could be put together in secret in a few weeks — and could even be launched from a cargo ship miles from our shore.

There will not be an accommodation between Western liberalism and radical Islam because the latter wants to supplant the former, both in world leadership and in cultural supremacy. Radical Islam — unlike conservative dictatorships — is essentially expansionist, and we are in its way.

The Obama Administration is mistaken in thinking that it will be possible to  contain or control radical Islamist regimes with nuclear weapons by appealing to common interests like economic development and cooperation in the name of humanity. Just as we are not prepared to give up our commitment to democratic government, equality under law and some form of free enterprise (although we may differ among ourselves about the degree of control government may have over that enterprise), they are committed to the highly undemocratic and anti-equality Islamicshari’a.

Iran has already invested a huge amount in its project to become a nuclear power, and it probably wouldn’t be wrong to say that today its achievement is the first priority among the objectives of the regime. It has become obvious that the present administration simply doesn’t have the will to stop them.

Israel, on the other hand, understands that it will be in mortal danger from a nuclear Iran. Whether it will succeed in stopping Iran is an open question today — but it would be ironic if, at the end of the day, the fate of America should depend on Israel.

http://fresnozionism.org/2013/11/what-is-there-about-death-to-america-that-you-dont-understand/

Why it is Important to Tell the Truth, by Barack H. Obama

Why it is Important to Tell the Truth, by Barack H. Obama

News item:

U.S. President Barack Obama phoned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, pledging future consultations with the U.S. ally on the deal. The White House announced the call while Obama was aboard Air Force One en route to Seattle for a fund-raising event.

In other news, the President’s plane almost had to make an emergency landing when his pants burst into flames immediately following the call.

Seriously, why would Netanyahu believe any assurances about future behavior after the way Obama deceived him about the contents of the agreement he was about to sign and the secret negotiations leading up to it?

My wife recently had my grandson write an essay about telling the truth. Maybe a similar exercise would be educational for the President?

Why it is Important to Tell the Truth
By Barack H. Obama

It is very important to tell the truth. If you don’t, then nobody will ever believe you or trust you. You will not have friends. For example, I told my friend Bibi that I wouldn’t weaken sanctions on Iran unless it agreed to stop enriching uranium. But meanwhile, I was secretly promising Iran that I would do just that! And then I did it. Now Bibi doesn’t want to be my friend anymore. Can you blame him?

I also told my other friends, the Arabs, that I wouldn’t allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But my deal gives them the time and money to do it. And I even said that the military option is still on the table! Well, that was a whopper! There is no way I will be the one to start a new war in the Middle East, even if that means I have to let Iran be the one to start it. But Bibi and the Arabs figured this out and now they are mad at me.

But I couldn’t help myself. It is really important for me to make it look like my policy of appeasement engagement is a success. I needed something positive after totally screwing up our relationship with Egypt, and then flip-flopping so embarrassingly on Syria. And of course the Republicans haven’t stopped busting my balls about the mess in Benghazi. I had to keep Bibi and the Arabs from spoiling my plan to be a successful peacemaker.

So I’m really, really sorry I got caught lying lied to Bibi and the Arabs. But I got the Nobel Peace Prize in advance for being so good at peace, didn’t I? And now I’m going to show the world how good I am at peace by fixing up Bibi and the Palestinians!

I just hope I don’t get caught again.

http://fresnozionism.org/2013/11/why-it-is-important-to-tell-the-truth-by-barack-h-obama/

Betrayal is between friends

Betrayal is between friends

The agreement concluded yesterday between the P5 + 1 and Iran grants Iran two essentials for its nuclear program: time and money. While it calls for Iran to stop or slow various activities, it weakens sanctions without requiring Iran to dismantle any of its facilities. Israeli PM Netanyahu calls it a “historic mistake,” and says that Iran has “taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.” Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s Minister of Intelligence said that it was based on “Iranian deception and [Western] self-delusion.”

Netanyahu has also said that Israel does not consider itself bound by the agreement. Israel was not a party to it (as Czechoslovakia was not a party to the Munich pact), and what he means is that Israel reserves the right to take action if Iran appears to be about to obtain nuclear capability.

This is strong talk, but quite sincere. Israel is not interested in further damaging its relationship with the US, and there is no reason for it to oppose the agreement other than the belief that it will bring Iran closer to achieving its goal. My guess is that the 6-month period of the interim agreement will not elapse without either Iran obtaining weapons capability, or Israel striking its nuclear facilities — despite the near-universal international condemnation this will evoke.

If Israel does hit Iran, many of her traditional enemies — the Sunni Arab bloc — will be pleased as punch. Of course, they won’t express their joy publicly nor will they become more reconciled to Israel’s continued existence, once the head is off the (Iranian) snake.

What is interesting to me is the depth of deception and betrayal of its Israeli ally by the Obama Administration. An AP report describes the process leading up to the deal:

The United States and Iran secretly engaged in a series of high-level, face-to-face talks over the past year, in a high-stakes diplomatic gamble by the Obama administration that paved the way for the historic deal sealed early Sunday in Geneva aimed at slowing Tehran’s nuclear program, The Associated Press has learned.

The discussions were kept hidden even from America’s closest friends, including its negotiating partners and Israel, until two months ago, and that may explain how the nuclear accord appeared to come together so quickly after years of stalemate and fierce hostility between Iran and the West. …
The talks were held in the Middle Eastern nation of Oman and elsewhere with only a tight circle of people in the know, the AP learned. Since March, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Jake Sullivan, Vice President Joe Biden’s top foreign policy adviser, have met at least five times with Iranian officials. …

Two secret meetings were organized immediately after Rouhani took office in August, with the specific goal of advancing the stalled nuclear talks with world powers. Another pair of meetings took place in October. …

As negotiators continued to talk behind the scenes, public speculation swirled over a possible meeting between Obama and Rouhani on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, which both attended in September in New York. Burns and Sullivan sought to arrange face-to-face talks, but the meeting never happened largely due to Iranian concerns, the officials said. Two days later, though, Obama and Rouhani spoke by phone — the first direct contact between a U.S. and Iranian leader in more than 30 years.

It was only after that Obama-Rouhani phone call that the U.S. began informing allies of the secret talks with Iran, the U.S. officials said.

Obama handled the most sensitive conversation himself,briefing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a Sept. 30 meeting at the White House. He informed Netanyahu only about the two summer meetings, not the March talks, in keeping with the White House’s promise only to tell allies about any discussions with Iran that were substantive.

In other words, the Obama Administration negotiated secretly for months with the regime that has called for the destruction of Israel countless times, and whose supreme leader recently called Israel “the rabid dog of the region” and said that Israelis “should not be called humans.” Obama informed his “ally” about it only two months before signing an agreement — an agreement that Israel believes sets the stage for Iran to threaten its existence.

Either the administration thinks the Israelis are wrong about the danger from Iran, or it doesn’t care. Secretary of State Kerry reportedly told members of the Senate Banking Committee to “stop listening to the Israelis on this.” And the White House recently claimed that the alternative to its deal will be a “march to war.” What they don’t say is that the result of appeasement is often also war, just war on worse terms.

I am going with “doesn’t care.” I’ve come to the conclusion that the administration believes that it is impossible to stop Iran — except by military means, which are off the table (despite what they say publicly) — and that it is possible to live with a nuclear Iran in the new ‘friendly’ atmosphere that they believe they have created by appeasing it.

From the start, President Obama and his advisers, almost to a man (or woman), have been unsympathetic to the idea of a Jewish state and to Israel in particular. Israel is, for them, if not an enemy at least an obstacle.

While you can deceive an enemy or obstacle, you can’t betray it. Betrayal is something that happens between friends or partners. And this administration has finally made it 100% clear that there is no such relationship.

Update [24 Nov 2044 PST]

Here is a good, short explanation of what is good and (mostly) bad about the deal.

Update [25 Nov 0844 PST]

And here is an official statement from the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Update [25 Nov 2249 PST]

Finally, here is a longer, 2-part discussion by J. E. Dyer, a retired Naval Intelligence officer.

http://fresnozionism.org/2013/11/betrayal-is-between-friends/

The story of Simon Schama

The story of Simon Schama

Melanie Phillips

I have now finally watched all five episodes of Simon Schama’s much acclaimed Story of the Jews, which was broadcast last month on BBC TV. I have also read the accompanying book, which covers 1000 BCE to 1492 CE; the second volume is due out next year.

Like many others, I found much of the TV series spell-binding, magnificent and moving (the first episode was a bit incoherent, though; and more than a little jarring to launch such a series by dwelling upon Sigmund Freud’s bizarre Moses and Monotheism, which told the world little except that Freud had the mother and father of a problem when it came to his own ancestral faith).

Much of the rest of the series, though, was wonderful; and Schama is of course a peerless communicator, story-teller and performer. The book is even better; he breathes life into the past, his detail is as unexpected as it is illuminating, and you are just swept along by his passion, his emotion and his personal commitment.

But that’s just it, really: this is very much Simon Schama’s deeply personal Story of the Jews. Indeed, it feels to some extent like Simon Schama’s own story. For what drives the whole thing, what invests the narrative with such urgent, almost desperate passion, is what seems to be Schama’s ambivalence towards the faith of his ancestors: an ambivalence which appears to be as profound as his commitment to the Jewish people.

Of the strength of that commitment, there can be absolutely no doubt. What radiates throughout is the intense and loving attachment he still feels to the Jewish culture in which he was brought up. But what is so very clear from the book, if not the series, is that Schama is anxious to address two fundamental issues which gnaw away at him.

First, given his presumption that the Hebrew Bible is not to be taken literally, how then to explain the fact that the Jews stuck to their religious story through thick and thin? Might there actually be something Out There to explain it? Surely not! And yet…

Second, he tries to show that there is nothing about Judaism which means the Jews have to be separate from the host communities in which they have settled over the centuries.  He finds example after example where the Jews have adapted to, and taken on the characteristics of, those majority cultures.

With both these issues, you feel he is trying to square a personal circle: the deep attachment which he himself, the quintessential man of reason and liberal pluralism, nevertheless feels for a stubbornly particularist, often obscurantist culture rooted in an unshakeable religious faith that has bafflingly survived the very worst that humanity can throw at it over and over again.

But try as he may, even Simon Schama cannot remake Judaism in his own image. And nowhere is this attempt more painful than in the final programme in the series, where he twists and turns over the State of Israel.

Yes, he states unequivocally ‘I am a Zionist’ – a statement which, in today’s lethal climate, amounts to a conspicuous act of courage. And there is also no doubt from the series that Israel moves him very profoundly.

Yet he selects the separation barrier as one of his defining images of Israel – an image he hates. Moreover, he depicts it as a wall – an ‘iron wall’ ­– whereas most of it is merely a far less daunting wire fence. And although he states emphatically that the barrier only came into being in response to the Palestinians’ campaign of mass murder against Israelis, and that yes, it has indeed saved countless Israeli lives, he goes on to make an impassioned denunciation of the barrier as not being what Judaism is all about.

So what exactly is it about the separation barrier that is supposed to be so un-Jewish, one wonders? Is it that it causes hardship for the Arabs on the other side? Is it,­ as he suggests elsewhere, ­that it separates Jews from Arabs and is therefore anti-inclusive?

If so, this is terribly wrong-headed. Israel does not separate Jews from Arabs. Israeli Arabs are integrated into Israeli life and enjoy full civil rights. The only Arabs the barrier separates from Israelis are those Arabs who live in communities which serve as factories of genocidal mass murder. There is nothing un-Jewish about protecting the innocent against those who wish to kill them; on the contrary, it is surely a moral imperative in any civilised society. And the hardship this inflicts upon  innocent Palestinians, which is indeed regrettable, only occurs because those communities will otherwise be party to the continued murder of Israelis.

Schama clearly knows all that. So why did he make a point of repudiating the Israel that has built that barrier? The answer is surely to be found in the series as a whole, and in particular in the deeply emotional penultimate episode about the Holocaust.

For Schama suggests that his Zionism is fired by his deep historical understanding that the Jews will never be safe other than in their own country. He sees Israel therefore through the prism of the Holocaust, and rightly regards it as a modern-day miracle that the Jews emerged from genocide to create their own country, with foundational values of which he is proud.

But the Jews do not owe their rights over Israel to the Holocaust. Zionism is not a victims’ charter, but the right to self-determination of the Jewish people. The Jews are entitled to Israel not because of their unique history of suffering, but because it is their own historic homeland. They are the only people as ‘a’ people for whom it was ever their national kingdom, which it was for hundreds of years before the Arabs came onto the scene at all; and so the Jews are thus entitled to have their own country as a matter of historical, legal and moral right.

But Schama's presentation misleadingly suggested instead that the Palestinian Arabs had an equivalent or even superior claim to the land. His programme made no mention of the international treaty in 1922 which explicitly recognised the unique Jewish right to settle all the land, including what is now the West Bank and Gaza.

Nor did the programme mention the betrayal by Britain of that treaty obligation, an ever-present incitement to Arab aggression which is the true cause of the Arab-Israel war without end. His moral indignation at a Jewish resident of Samaria for daring to live there demonstrated that, remarkably, Schama seems unaware of this history – and that the Jewish habitation of Samaria which causes him such disgust, on the false grounds that it is based on a contestable religious belief, is in fact rooted instead in history and law.

Quite why he cannot see this must remain a matter for speculation. But from the rest of his series, it would seem that he mourns the lost story of victims miraculously creating life out of the ashes – a story he suggests has been fatally compromised by the measures those victims are forced to take to ensure they never again are turned into ash.

In other words, he wants to turn Israel and the Jewish people into a different kind of story – his own story, the story to which he is so deeply attached. But that one is a story based on the myth of a world without hard choices, where the morally pure are those who never make any such hard choices – and where it follows that victimhood is therefore the pinnacle of morality.

But the State of Israel was founded on the great cry of ‘never again’ – and it means it. Which is why, whatever garlanded TV shows are made or books written, and however many ambivalent Jews wring their hands over it, Israel will never allow itself to become part of someone else’s story.

https://www.embooks.com/blog/single/the-story-of-simon-schama