See other Israel/Zionism Articles
Title: U.S. aid to Israel put in sharp focus
Source:
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
URL Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/265964_israel09.html
Published: Apr 9, 2006
Author: RUPERT CORNWELL
Post Date: 2006-04-09 08:35:54 by Eoghan
Ping List: *Israeli Espionage*
Keywords: None
Views: 61
Comments: 9
To John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, heartfelt thanks are due. They are very eminent academics, from the University of Chicago and Harvard respectively, and the authors of a treatise titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." To most European ears, their case is persuasive. Israel, they argue, has become a liability in Washington's war on terror, that has reduced America's ability to deal with rogue states. There is no longer a moral or strategic case for U.S. support for Israel, and the billions of dollars it extends to the Jewish state each year, no questions asked. Yet, claim Mearsheimer and Walt, such is the stranglehold of the lobby on Congress that these policies are never seriously debated. The lobby itself, the authors say, is led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other pro-Jewish groups. It also includes powerful gentile outriders in key positions, mostly in the neo-conservative movement, in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill and in the media, as well as the politically influential evangelical Christian movement, which believes that a greater Israel is the fulfilment of God's will. Predictably, the paper has provoked an almighty uproar. Their scholarship has been derided by their peers; Eliot Cohen, a celebrated historian and neo-con, declared in The Washington Post that it was simply anti-Semitic, displaying "obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews." But such vitriol, which contrasts with the measured prose of Mearsheimer and Walt, obscures the most important point. For once, questions asked so often in Europe and other parts of the world are being asked in America. Is there a "Jewish Lobby" in the United States? Of course there is, just as there are highly effective lobbies for gun ownership, farmers and for ridding Cuba of communism: How else is it that America persists in its spiteful and futile persecution of Fidel Castro's unlovely but unimportant regime? The answer is the critical Cuban-American vote in the electorally vital Florida. Thus it is, writ far larger, with AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups. They do a great professional job. But they are tilling very fertile soil. Americans, as polls have shown, side with Israel rather than the Palestinians by a margin of roughly 4-1. Suppose those figures were reversed. However well organized, AIPAC and the like wouldn't have a prayer. But America's sympathy for Israel, and the effectiveness of the Jewish lobby, have together rendered the country two giant disservices. The first is the suppression of serious domestic debate on the U.S. relationship with Israel. It is beyond dispute that one reason -- not the only reason, it is true, but a significant one -- for the strife in the Middle East, and the lethally virulent anti-Americanism in the region, is America's built-in bias towards Israel, its failure to twist Israel's arm, its refusal to exert real pressure to halt settlement expansion on the West Bank, to cite just one example. But you hear next to nothing of this, least of all in Congress -- once memorably described by the old isolationist bruiser Pat Buchanan as "Israeli-occupied territory." Criticize Israel, and as the Cohen response shows, you are branded an anti-Semite. Concentrating minds is the legend of Charles Percy, the Illinois senator whose electoral defeat in 1984 is said to have been engineered by the Lobby in retaliation for a supposedly "anti-Israel stance." The folklore of Capitol Hill is clear: you defy AIPAC at your peril. The second disservice rendered by the "Jewish lobby" is the conflation of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians with America's war on terror, so that 9/11 is ultimately presented as no more than a gigantic, horrific specimen of the suicide bomber threat that (at least until the building of the "security fence" to which the United States has also raised few serious objections) was faced on a daily basis by Israelis in their own cities. Thus was born the theory of the indivisible nature of terrorism, bought by the neo-cons and sold by Ariel Sharon -- long before the invasion of Iraq -- to an American president convinced that the world was divided into simple opposite camps of good and evil, in which "you are either with us or against us." Thus the strategic interests of Israel and the United States in the region were fused, with the pernicious consequences outlined by Mearsheimer and Walt. Don't expect the tectonic plates of diplomacy to shift. The Israel Lobby makes a measured case. But it will be added -- indeed it already has been added -- to the long catalogue of accusations that a Jewish cabal runs European finance/American foreign policy/the world. Such theories have been around forever. As I embarked on this piece, I glanced at my bookshelves for inspiration. A title instantly leapt out: "The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy." In it, Edward Tivnan maintains that the pro-Israel lobby had silenced debate on Capitol Hill and had become an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Sound familiar? Yet the book was published in 1987. Plainly, Tivnan's arguments have changed nothing. Americans like Israel, come what may. I will bet that the very similar ones of Walt and Mearsheimer make little difference either. Rupert Cornwell writes for The Independent, a British paper, from Washington, D.C.
Poster Comment: One of the rare American publications daring to touch the subject and inform readers. THE HAVARD PAPER is pulling our "Jewish allies" out of the woodpile and calling for censorship.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Jethro Tull, wbales (#0)
It was a welcome report. I hope it gives others courage to stand up and identify THE issue once and for all.
The only people not charged with antisemitism on a daily basis. Americans, as polls have shown, side with Israel rather than the Palestinians by a margin of roughly 4-1. No wonder the IDF is never charged with a crime, even shooting frightened schoolgirls is considered admirable. How many Americans really understand what happened to the vast majority of non-Jewish people who populated Palestine before Lord Balfour's Declaration. Dear Lord Rothschild: I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet: His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours, Arthur James Balfour No matter that most of the Jews who came to live there afterwards, were far less semitic than the people who were currently living there.
”We have room but for one flag... We have room but for one language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is the loyality to the American people.” - Theodore Roosevelt
Yes, indeed. Let's get the issue identified, at least once (though I'll wager it'll need repeating). I thought below to provide some 1st century history on modern Israel and how it came to be establshed. This is to put in context some points I wish to make about the above article and the paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". Generally, both the article above and the paper tend to cast their argument within a very narrow, very recent context which neither informs nor gives commensurate weight to Israel's legitimate right to exist in peace, and the unwarranted and unending attacks it endures. For overall background, Israel and Palestine: A Brief History has a moderately detailed, accurate and even-handed history. Many of the maps below come from that website. Here is the Ottoman Empire 1798-1923. Note as of 1798 the entire colored area within the light green border was the Ottoman Empire. The purple areas of Egypt, Tunis, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia were already lost by 1886. By the start of WWI in 1914 Tripolitania, Cyrenacia, Albania and part of the Sinai peninsula were lost. By 1918, the end of WWI, the Ottoman's had lost Armenia, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and Hejaz (with the French and British picking up the mandates of Syria and Palestine respectively as per the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916) with Turkey being the sole surviving remnant: (click to enlarge) Sykes-Picot Agreement, May 9, 1916 Towards the middle of WWI, the French and British secretly agreed what Ottoman Turkish territories they would control after the war. The British would control the territory containing what would become Mandate of Palestine and the TransJordan. (click to enlarge) The Balfour Declaration November 2, 1917 The British government agreed in principal to establish a Jewish homeland. Unstated was that the land would come from the Ottoman Turk territories controlled by the British upon the WWI ending. The declaration simply stated: "His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. " The Weizmann-Faisal Agreement (Paris Peace Conference) January 3, 1919 Chaim Weizmann (representing the Zionist's) and Emir Faisal Ibn al-Hussein al-Hashemi (representing the Arabs) agreed the Balfour declaration would be implemented using land to be determined later, and made a treaty that that a Jewish homeland would be established and coexist with an Arab state: Article II Immediately following the completion of deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto. Article III In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government57;s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration-SEH). British White Paper of June 1922 During 1920-21, Arabs in Jerusalem had been incited (by the Muft Haj Amin al-Husseini) to riot and murder Jews under the false pretext that Palestine was being planned as a purely Jewish state. These riots were the impetus for a whitepaper intended to refute these false rumors and restore calm and Arab-Jewish relations in Palestine and Jerusalem were subsequently relatively peaceful from 1922-1928. Though in authority, the British did nothing to quell the rioting, but did arrest those Jews who had formed a self-defense league. Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill's office issued this whitepaper which reaffirmed British intentions to implement the Balfour Declaration to the mutual benefit of Arabs and Jews with land allocated from the British Mandate of Palestine under authority being drafted by the League of Nations, and the expectation that Jews and Arabs will live together within that mandate territory (excerpted): Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English. " His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development." Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change. This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews. British Mandate of Palestine July 24, 1922 The League Nations, a treaty organization formed at the end of WWI by the victors, grants authority to the British to setup and administer the Mandate of Palestine, with a Jewish homeland, in fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and Article II of the Weizmann-Faisal agreement establishing boundaries (excerpted): The Council of the League of Nations: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and [this identifies the territory formerly held by the Ottoman Turks (and controlled by Britain rather than France as per Sykes-Picot) but further limited as per article 25 below] Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and [this identifies the British Mandate of Palestine is intended to fulfill the Balfour declaration, for which boundaries were to be defined as per the Wiezmann-Faisal agreement] ART. 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18. [Note, this is the provision that excluded Jewish immigration from the TransJordan, setting it aside for exclusive occupation by Arabs under Arab rule] British Mandate of Palestine and TransJordan (click to enlarge) Though peaceful for a few years, in 1929 Arabs again were incited to riot against the Jews in Jerusalem, again by Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, because Jews wanting to pray the Western Wall were alleged to be endangering mosques and Islamic holy sites. Again, the British did nothing to stop the riots. The Jews were able to defend themselves generally, but in Hebron 67 Jews were killed and the Jewish residents of Hebron were exiled to Jerusalem. For 39 years, Jews did not live in Hebron until it was "liberated" at the end of the 1967 war. British [McDonald] White Paper of 1939 From 1936 to 1939 Arabs yet again were incited to riot against Jews, fomented by Izz al Din El Qassam (who was then killed by the British) and again by Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini. This time Arabs were demanding an end to Jewish immigration (which immigration was previously agreed and lawful), Jewish land ownership, and a new government. What started as a strike and boycott of Jewish businesses escalated into a rampage killing both Arabs and Jews. The British police were largely unprepared to cope. In response to the Arab violence, the British reversed their goals and intentions for Palestine and a Jewish homeland therein; the British essentially rejected independent Arab and Jewish states in lieu of a combined Arab/Jewish government (and excluding Jewish input should that prove unachievable), imposed further limits on Jewish immigration, stopped further land ownership. But the British did reaffirm the Palestine was to be neither purely Arab nor purely Jewish. Section I. "The Constitution" But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognised to rest upon ancient historic connection." For their part they can only adhere, for the reasons given by their representatives in the Report, to the view that the whole of Palestine west of Jordan was excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge, and they therefore cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State. The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded. His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to create conditions which will enable the independent Palestine State to come into being within 10 years. If, at the end of 10 years, it appears to His Majesty's Government that, contrary to their hope, circumstances require the postponement of the establishment of the independent State, they will consult with representatives of the people of Palestine, the Council of the League of Nations and the neighbouring Arab States before deciding on such a postponement. If His Majesty's Government come to the conclusion that postponement is unavoidable, they will invite the co-operation of these parties in framing plans for the future with a view to achieving the desired objective at the earliest possible date. [Note that neither the Jewish people or "Zionists" were to be consulted in event of a postment] Section II. Immigration Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically , the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension. The methods employed by Arab terrorists against fellow Arabs and Jews alike must receive unqualified condemnation. But it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East. His Majesty's Government cannot take the view that either their obligations under the Mandate, or considerations of common sense and justice, require that they should ignore these circumstances in framing immigration policy. The alternatives before His Majesty's Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. ... Therefore His Majesty's Government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish National Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above. Section III. Land The Reports of several expert Commissions have indicated that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land. These powers will date from the publication of this statement of policy and the High Commissioner will retain them throughout the transitional period. So by 1939, with the McDonald whitepaper and ensuing changes, the independant Jewish State with some specific boundaries within the Mandate of Palestine (as previously agreed by Balfour, Weizmann-Faisal, the League of Nations, and the British government), in which Jews would control their own governance, immigration, and land was all but ended. And concurrently, Jews were being persecuted in Europe and Germany, and WWII broke out. Groups like the Haganah smuggled Jews into Palestine illegally and the British attempted to blockade. Jewish terrorist groups like Irgun and Lehi then formed to combat the British. The US pressured Britain to permit immigration while the Arabs pressured them to block it. After WWII, The British granted full independance to the TransJordan (which became Jordan, an Arab state exclusive of Jews as previously agreed), the League of Nations was replaced by the UN, and the British ceded authority for the Mandate of Palestine to the UN. UN Res 181 proposes partition of Palestine, Nov 29, 1947: Palestine land ownership at the time was approximately 45% Arab, 48% state, and the remainder owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency. About 600,000 Jews lived in areas assigned to the Jewish state or in the international part of Jerusalem, and 1.2 million Arabs. (click to enlarge) Inspite of the dramatically reduced and discontinuous territory, the Jews readily accepted the UN Res 181 partitioning, but the Arabs rejected it, now demanding that Palestine be entirely Arab. Haj Amin al-Husseini (the instigator of the 1920-21 and 1929 riots and the 1936-39 Arab revolt) persuaded the Arab League to declare war on the Jews and drive them out of Palestine. Which is what they did. Arab-Israeli War; Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria invade May 1948: During 1947 Haj Amin El Husseini formed an Arab militia in the Jerusalem, and Fawzi El Kaukji brought in another Arab militia to Galilee from Syria, while the British watched. The Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi engaged the Arab militias. (click to enlarge) By the end of fighting in 1949, the Jews had defeated the Arabs and generally held Palestine with Egypt holding Gaza and Jordan holding the West Bank. Some three quarters of a million Arabs had fled Palestine; some in advance of the fighting in response to Arab radio broadcasts to get out of the way of pending Arab attacks, but also some fled the actual fighting (true refugees), all becoming refugees in neighboring Arab countries - these are the " Palestinian refugees" whose status is often disputed. Even though having lost, the Arabs (Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan) refused permanent peace treaties and the 'tenative treaty borders' were never recognized internationally. Their defeat and refusal to agree to a peace treaty or acknowledge Israels right to a homeland under the Balfour Declaration, Weizmann-Faisal agreement, the Mandate of Palestine (as clarified and revised by the whitepapers of 1922 and 1939), and UN resolution 181, all festered within the Arab mindset leading up to the 1967 6-day war. 6-Day War, June 1967 In 1964 Arab governments established the PLO which declared its intent to destroy Israel.The Syrians and Lebanese beagn to implement Jordan water diversion projects design to reduce the flow of water into the Sea of Galilee, water formerly uninterrupted and on which Israel depended. The Syrians were also firing upon Israel from DMZs in the Golan Heights. In mid-1967, Egypt again closed the Straits of Tiran to blockade Eilat; ejected the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai and advanced tanks accross the Sinai upto Israel's border. In 1967, Nasser is quoted to have said: The Israeli Defense Forces attacked on June 5, and agreed to a ceasefire on June 11, 1967 winning control of the territory shown in green below; the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights. (click to enlarge) Yom Kippur War , October 6-22, 1973 Twice Anwar Sadat said Egypt would again go to war against Israel to recover the Sinai, and that 1971 was a "year of decision", which came and passed. By April of 1973, Syria and Egypt had agreed on a coordinated attack. By August 1973, Egypt had also obtained the cooperation of Saudi Arabia to implement an oil boycott. On September 11, Egypt and Jordan announced they were preparing for battle against Israel. Egypt and Syria had chosen Oct 6, Yom Kippur, as the day of attack. The Israelis ignored a secret warning from King Hussein of Jordan and from the CIA of Egyptian and Syrian plans. Through overconfidence, Israel very nearly lost the Yom Kippur war and somewhat "miraculously" avoided extinction: The attack commenced on October 6 1973 on two fronts, the Sinai and the Golan Heights. From Oct 6-8 the Syrians and Israelis fought a tank battle in the Golan with Israel mostly losing. The first Israeli counter attack against Egypt in the Sinai on Oct 8 failed but in the Golan the Syrians were being pushed back. By Oct 10th the Israelis crossed the 1967 armistice lines into Syria and were bombing Damascus. The Soviets resupplied both the Egyptian and Syrian armies on Oct 10, and the US began to resupply Israel on Oct 14. On Oct 12 the Israelis accepted a US brokered cease fire but Egypt refused. On Oct 14th, the Egyptians mistakenly overextended their advance beyond their SAM cover range and, though the Israeli advance into Syria had stalled, the Israelis had turned the overall war. In the Sinai, by Oct 19 they had crossed the Suez canal and were threatening Suez City. The Egyptians now called for a cease fire, but demanded a return to pre-Yom Kippur positions. Israel refused. Egypt appealed for Soviet intervention and the US, Soviets and UN put forward UN Res 338 (a cease fire with acceptance of UN Res 242 ). Both Israel and Egypt accepted it but then fought on, breaking the ceasefire. By Oct 24th the Soviets, being extremely alarmed by Israel now advancing on Cairo, issued an ultimatum. The US countered by going to DEFCON-3. By Oct 25th the Soviets had forced Egypt (and Syria), and the US had forced Israel, to accept UN Res 339 (an update of 338), hostilities ceased and UN observers put in place. On March 26, 1979 Egypt entered into a formal peace treaty with Israel acknowledging Israel's right to exist, and Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt. By April 25, 1982 Israel had withdrawn from the Sinai, including forcibly removing its own settlers. On October 26, 1994 Jordan accepted UN Res 242 and 338 and peace with Israel. No other Arab state has to date made peace with Israel or formally acknowledged Israel's right to exist, though hypocritically they demand Israel return to conditions established under UN Res 181 and (implicitly) the prior Mandate for Palestine (as modified by by whitepapers of 1922 and 1939), the Weizmann- Faisal agreement, and the Balfour Declaration. So, the point of that walk through of 1st century Palestinian/Israeli history is to provide the context for the current conflict and the commentary. Now as to my specific points. As I said on a different thread, I do not believe the paper or the article are anti-semitic. I simply believe them to be spinning one side of the issue, a side that naively expects Israel to ignore the threat and not anticipate those who seek its complete destruction. The article states: To most European ears, their case is persuasive. Israel, they argue, has become a liability in Washington's war on terror, that has reduced America's ability to deal with rogue states. There is no longer a moral or strategic case for U.S. support for Israel, and the billions of dollars it extends to the Jewish state each year, no questions asked. and the paper argues essentially four main points: I will say at the onset that I'm not qualified to judge Israel's strategic value, but neither do the authors seem so qualified, and they do seem to ignore the strategic importance Israel plays in the transshipment of Russian oil, and the inarguable fact that Israel is the prime military target of all it's neighbors (rightly or wrongly that is a fact). Nor do I intend to argue against the influence of the Israeli lobby. The do seem too influential and more needs to be exposed and discussed openly. But I will argue there is a moral case to support Israel as well as fight terrorists (theirs and ours). First, as to terrorism. Since Israel's defeat of the Arab states in the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973 (which those Arab states unjustly started), unable to achieve their illegal destruction of Israel by open warfare, Arabs states began to support and sponsor terrorism against Israel, initially from Yasser Arafat and the PLO: And, yes, the US supported Israel. And the attacks mounted against the US as well but for what? For not forcing Israel to forego agreements made originally in the Balfour Declaration, elaborated in the Weizmann-Faisal agreement, enumerated in detail by the League of Nations, and agreed yet again by the UN, and only finally enforced by winning three wars against unprovoked attacks? Israel is expected to passively await attacks, to host and negotiate with Yasser Arafat (the father of terrorism against Israel), ideally lose wars and not take any territory in combat, but when it does take territory it is expected to be returned, immediately, without any compensating assurances of future peace or secure internationally agreed borders? No other county in the world is expected to tolerate half that. I reiterate that aside from Egypt and Jordan, no other Arab state has to date made peace with Israel or formally acknowledged Israel's right to exist, though hypocritically they demand Israel return to conditions established under UN Res 181 and (implicitly) the prior Mandate for Palestine (as modified by by whitepapers of 1922 and 1939), the Weizmann-Faisal agreement, and the Balfour Declaration. And for siding with Israel and assisting it (as Russia similarly assists Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and Syria) and asserting Israel be accorded the same rule of international law and treaty which other nations expect, the US becomes a terrorist target in its own right: And here are lists of: And here is a list of 28 Suspected al-Qaeda Terrorist Acts. Note in the above that numerically, the huge preponderance of terrorist attacks are not against Israel but other targets, most often other religions or servicemen and citizens of other countries. The point being that for all the blame Israel gets for fomenting Islamic terrorism, the terrorists more often have non-Israeli and even non-US targets. Terrorism isn't just an Israeli problem, both before and after 9/11. The US is a target of terrorists overall not merely because the US supports Israel, but because the US hasn't given in to Islamic demands. The article goes on to state: Americans, as polls have shown, side with Israel rather than the Palestinians by a margin of roughly 4-1. Suppose those figures were reversed. However well organized, AIPAC and the like wouldn't have a prayer. I think this particular argument is largely semantics. In the context, I think Israel v Palestinians means Israel v Palestinian groups and leaders (like Arafat, PLO, Hamas, Fatah, etc), and of course, given the history as noted above, they get no sympathy from Americans. But I don't believe Americans construe the question to be about Israel vs the Palestinian people, the " little guy". I believe the American people do see the Palestinian people as caught between their terrorist leadership and Israel's resolve to defeat that terrorist leadership. The article further states: Thus was born the theory of the indivisible nature of terrorism, bought by the neo-cons and sold by Ariel Sharon -- long before the invasion of Iraq -- to an American president convinced that the world was divided into simple opposite camps of good and evil, in which "you are either with us or against us." Thus the strategic interests of Israel and the United States in the region were fused, with the pernicious consequences outlined by Mearsheimer and Walt. This is a strawman argument that serves (perhaps unwittingly) to deflect attention away from the real problem. Most Americans are more nuanced than George Bush's overly simplistic views, and Americans recognize there are more "camps" in the world than merely "with us or agin us". And there are more options than the neo-cons, Bush and Sharon present. To constrain the discussion to their mistakes alone is to repeat past mistakes. And Israel and the US can have the same interests, without those interests necessarily being joined at the hip. We can pursue the same goals, but pursue them independently, for independent reasons. And therein lies the real problem: by casting the debate in terms of what Israel or the neocons did wrong, and ignore what the Arab states and the British and the Europeans have done wrong, is to ignore two thirds of the problem and hence ignore a large part of the solution. Israel has an undeniable, inarguable legal right to exist, and the Arabs, Europeans, media, etc., had best "get over it" and do a better job of communicating that right to the terrorists, because Israel is not going to forsake their rights and roll over and die just to appease unappeasable enemies. Anyone who thinks Israel can be bullied or have their arm twisted (by the US or anyone) to that extent is irrational and naive in the extreme. As Benjamin Franklin remarked, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote". Regardless of how the world votes on what Israel should do to appease terrorists and Palestinians leaders, Israel will maintain its liberty to survive. In an atmosphere of global recognition of past agreements and Israel's right to exist, in peace, plus the pragmatic recognition of its enemies that Israel will not relent in its own self-defense, then genuine solutions (like refugee settlement) can be explored and genuine problems (like excessive lobbying and terrorism) can be countered with those solutions.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The British and Europeans were under the thumb of the same international banking cartel then as now.
Thanks for Prohibition and the war against drugs. Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind their own business. Thanks for a nation of finks. Yes, thanks for all the memories-- all right let's see your arms!- William S Burroughs
the "bankers made me do it" defense - lol
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
IMO it is rather to say that the other two thirds is, or should not be, our problem. do a better job of communicating that right to the terrorists Not our (U.S.'s) job. Israel's right to exist, in peace, We have no dog in that fight.
Not affirming Israel's right to exist is to implicitly condone the actions of others who explicitly deny Israel's right to exist, and the ensuing conflict will continue to expand and engulf everyone. No one sits out a nuclear exchange in the middle east. Everyone will be affected. OTOH, as a minimal prerequisite to avoiding war, Israel's right to exist must be acknowleged. Proclaiming that right persuasively, compellingly, steadfastly, and denying terrorists and their sponsors any intellectual refuge in pretending otherwise becomes essential to avoiding war, albeit no guarantee. History is replete with examples of conflicts wrought by deluded fools who believed their own specious lies. Now arguably (sadly) the US is no longer in any position to "preach" international law and good faith negotiating. That doesn't mean the preaching isn't needed or appropriate, but a more credible preacher is.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
You are either with us or (implicitly) agin' us.
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#2. To: Eoghan, starwind, freeedom (#1)
One of the rare American publications daring to touch the subject and inform readers. THE HAVARD PAPER is pulling our "Jewish allies" out of the woodpile and calling for censorship.
#3. To: Eoghan, *US is Proxy State For Israel* (#0)
It also includes powerful gentile outriders in key positions, mostly in the neo-conservative movement, in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill and in the media, as well as the politically influential evangelical Christian movement, which believes that a greater Israel is the fulfilment of God's will.
Foreign Office November 2nd, 1917
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
I hope it gives others courage to stand up and identify THE issue once and for all.
#5. To: Starwind (#4)
by casting the debate in terms of what Israel or the neocons did wrong, and ignore what the Arab states and the British and the Europeans have done wrong, is to ignore two thirds of the problem and hence ignore a large part of the solution.
#6. To: Dakmar (#5)
The British and Europeans were under the thumb of the same international banking cartel then as now.
#7. To: Starwind (#4)
by casting the debate in terms of what Israel or the neocons did wrong, and ignore what the Arab states and the British and the Europeans have done wrong, is to ignore two thirds of the problem and hence ignore a large part of the solution.
I use antlers in all of my decorating.
#8. To: Tauzero (#7)
[Not our (U.S.'s) job] communicating [Israel's right to exist, in peace] to the terrorists
We have no dog in that fight.
#9. To: Starwind (#8)
Not affirming Israel's right to exist is to implicitly condone the actions of others who explicitly deny Israel's right to exist
No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing.
-- Claudius
According to the socionomic uncertainty principle, the clearer our view of the situation, the less we can do to alter it.
Truth then is not beauty; it is serenity, reserved to the stoic.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest