Iranian Threats and U.S. Action Regarding Israel

web.israelinsider.com ^ | January 22, 2006 | Rachel Neuwirth

[Esther Ruth]

Few days old ..

[Esther Ruth]

ping?

[Sabramerican]

Israel is like an American mistress.

She's young and fun. You give her expensive gifts.

You have a good time with her and..... you enjoy screwing her. Even with her head.

But you don't ever take her out in polite company.

She is not considered your partner.

Sometime you're ashamed to be seen with her.

And although you may not love your wife (Arabs), maybe even despise your wife, the wife always comes first and the Mistress better understand her place.

If the Mistress wants some respect maybe a future, you must constantly remind her what's what and she better accept the crumbs offered because otherwise she is out on her own.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

This article appears to piece together a patchwork of facts to imply the the United States had maintained an antisemitic and anti-Israeli policy since FDR. Of course mistakes were made. The unwillingness of the USA to take in Jewish refugees from NAZI genocide is particularly a dark spot on our history.
What this article fails to explain is the historical context from the 1940s through today. Prior to Pearl Harbor the American public was largely opposed to entering the war in Europe. FDR extended as much aid as possible to Britain to keep it from falling to Hitler. FDR knew that the public would not support entering the war. The Japanese solved that problem. The article fails to mention that the USA was instrumental in the destruction of the NAZIs and saving millions from extermination.

The article implies that our Middle Eastern policy was driven by our connection with Saudi Arabia. I strongly disagree. Our policy up until Nixon was to maintain a neutral policy that supported the existence of the State of Israel. Most importantly, this article fails to mention how Nixon's diversion of massive military equipment from Europe (which temporarily left us with few backup resources against the Soviet Union), to Israel in 1972 may have saved the State of Israel. Since Nixon, our policy has been generally tilted toward Israel, and since G.W. Bush decidedly partnering with Israel. Israel receives more foreign aid than any other country by far, and in addition, the second recipient, Egypt was effective bribed into Camp David with massive aid.

Any fool can see that US policy has not been antisemitic, if fact it has supported the continued State of Israel. When the Europeans wimp out on votes at the UN, it is the USA that votes with Israel. US policy should seek an ultimate peace between Israel and it neighbors. I'm not sure that the author of this article expects from the USA.

[Savage Beast]

"It should be noted that President Bush has no problem lavishing praise and hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer funds on Mahmoud Abbas"

Is this true? It's news to me.

[Sabramerican]

US policy vis a vis Israel is not anti Semitic (although there may have been anti Semites here and there making policy) it's just real politic.

US policy is that Israel can/must survive but only on the terms acceptable to Saudi Arabia.

[Sabramerican]

Are you serious?

[bereanway]

I'm afraid tiny Israel has become the sacrificial lamb as we continue our cozy relationship with the House of Saud established over 50 years ago.

It's one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen. Here is a tiny country with less than 1/600 the land mass of the surrounding 22 odd Muslim states and she is being coerced to give up what little land she possesses. And somehow this is supposed to result in peace?

This is one of the reasons I'm not a big Condi fan.

[Savage Beast]

"Are you serious?"

Yes.

I understand that hundreds of millions of dollars are taken from U.S. taxpayers and lavished on foreign governments as "foreign aid", and, if this is not lavished on the rabid theocracy that governs Iran, it would be surprising. Has Bush lavished additional money on Mahoud Abbas?

And has Bush lavished praise on Abbas??? No. If so, I didn't know about it.

[Sabramerican]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html

[Sabramerican]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0601230191jan23,1,544919.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

[Esther Ruth]

And supposed good people pretend otherwise...there's trouble coming!

[Sabramerican]

In case you missed it:

yearly $400 million in aid to the Palestinians

[Esther Ruth]

It's one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen
***
Heard many of the opinion that the U.S. was Rev17 over the years but never believed it possible. Getting easier every day!

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev017.html#5

[Convert from ECUSA]

Many members of our governmental so-called "elite" have been anti-Israel/anti-Jewish since way back when. Israel has been regarded as an inconvenience at best. The "elite" at the State Department has always been loaded with anti-Israel "arabists" who'd sell their souls for a barrel of Fraudi crude. Even Gen. George Marshall, respected architect of victory in WW 2, was totally against Truman supporting Israel - even told Truman he would not vote for him if Truman recognized Israel.

Support for Israel over the years has been mostly from Congress (one of the few genuinely bi-partisan agreements in Babylon-on-the-Potomac) and a majority of the American public.

The highest Presidential support for Israel was during times in the Cold War when Israel's anti-Soviet stance was perceived to be a common strategic interest (Begin, for example, was just about as anti-Soviet as Reagan). Nixon strongly supported Israel because both the US and Israel were very much against the Soviet presence in Egypt (before Sadat kicked the Bolshies out in '72) and to a lesser extend, Syria. Nixon was not a lover of Jews by any means, but he respected Israel's then-tough stance against the Soviets and terrorism and admired Israel's military prowess.

[Paul_Denton]

Agree. I was and am still hoping that with a democratic Iraq (which would in tern be far more friendly to Israel than the Saudis) that we can tell the saudis to go pound sand. But sadly it does not look like the case.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I lived in Saudi Arabia for five years (US Army COE) and and familiar with the history of that country and the Middle East. I do not believe that the Saudi Royal family directs our foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel.

I am convinced that the Saudi royals are less concerned about the Palestinians than they appear.

As for this comment:
"Here is a tiny country with less than 1/600 the land mass of the surrounding 22 odd Muslim states and she is being coerced to give up what little land she possesses."

While I totally support Israel and its continued security, Israel cannot continue to occupy large population centers of Arab population. Israel has been attacked time and time again and had been "in the right" in seizing real estate in order to protect itself. However, to permanently convert the West Bank into Israel would in effect create a state with either:

1) a huge population of people without civil rights;or
2) if you granted such rights, relegate Jews to minority status.

The Arabs need to learn to govern themselves. Prime Ministers of Israel to date have articulated this.
US policy has never been more favorable to Israel than it has under Bush, with Condi Rice as Sec of State. I believe that Bush and Sharon were on the same page. God Bless PM Sharon.

I say build the fence/wall and if the Palestinians won't negotiate a boarder, then create the border that leaves out the bulk of Palestinian population.

[Sabramerican]

US policy has never been more favorable to Israel than it has under Bush, with Condi Rice as Sec of State.

100% prime Arabian rubbish