Posted on 04/22/2010 1:12:10 PM PDT by tedbel
"When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.
[..] "Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."
To show that Obama was not alone in this, it buttressed his message by quoting from Sec'y Rice, Gen Patraeus and Martin Indyk. It might just as well have quoted from The Baker Report, Z Brzezinski and Sec'y Clinton.
Actually this shift was a long time in coming. There have always been voices in the administration that viewed Israel as a liability rather than an asset.
Richard Holbrooke pointed this out in his recent article, “Washington’s Battle Over Israel’s Birth,” He quotes Secretary of Defense James Forrestal who made his case for non-recognition by saying "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other. Why don’t you face up to the realities?" He concluded, "[To] this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman’s decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States."
Then as now, Israel was opposed by “the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews, [including] the publishers of both the Post and the New York Times.”
(Excerpt) Read more at israpundit.com ...
Gulf war I; undoing the invasion of Kuwait. Muslim on Muslim. Gulf War II; continuation of I. Afganistan; take down of the Taliban because of 9-11.
Seems like most of the blood and treasure has zip to do with Israel. Barry better be careful, somebody might just think HE's a muslim.
There have always been voices in the administration that viewed Israel as a liability rather than an asset. Richard Holbrooke pointed this out in his recent article, "Washington's Battle Over Israel's Birth," He quotes Secretary of Defense James Forrestal who made his case for non-recognition by saying "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other. Why don't you face up to the realities?" He concluded, "[To] this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman's decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States." Then as now, Israel was opposed by "the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews, [including] the publishers of both the Post and the New York Times."Was Forrestal the one who jumped out of the hotel window? Thanks tedbel.
Yep, Forrestal was the one who offed himself. However, antisemites love to blame the Jews for it.
Completely off topic, but I was watching (of all things) the TV show “Glee” last night. A lead character is an annoying, but pretty, Jewish girl.
In one bit, the girl said (talking to her teammates) “I have something very important to ask you.”
A voice answered, in a throw away line, “Yes, you should move to Israel” -— que the laughter.
For whatever reason, this stung me like a bee sting, and made it very clear that the sooner I get my family back to Israel, the better.
Publishers of the NY Times are Presbyterians. I don't have the knowledge about the publishers of the Post.
Thanks!
That is kinda silly, we all know Forrestal died seeking that gold idol that Indy wound up getting, then losing to Beloch.
It was put in the script by some lib’, and you and about a couple of thousand others watched the show, but in ten years it’ll be used as an example of right-wing corruption of the entertainment media.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
The bitterness of the line was staggering.
Silly to be bothered by that, but it made it very clear that we are not wanted here (or anywhere, but Israel).
FWIW, I think it’s not true per se — there are those who don’t want Jews around, those who don’t care one way or the other (that is most people, IMHO), and those who are ‘philes. Some people say “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”, others say “it’s the quacking duck that gets shot”, but my view is, it’s usually appropriate to say, “the empty can makes the most noise”. ;’)
Not sure, but I think the “empty can” saying came to me when I was a kid, from the comedy team Burns & Schreiber. :’)
Is the article still at ISRAPundit? The link doesn’t work for me.
Thank you, sir. I think you’re on exactly the right track.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.