Posted on 04/18/2014 10:59:38 AM PDT by SJackson
The Jewish state has diplomatic, geographic, economic and Jewish reasons to shun the international arenas hottest flash point. Pro-Russian supporters in Ukraine attend a rally in the Crimea. Pro-Russian supporters in Ukraine attend a rally in the Crimea. Photo: REUTERS
Bored by life in the opposition and missing his previous careers action, Moshe Dayan decided to go to Vietnam, take a close look at what then was the worlds only major war, and report his impressions in several newspapers.
The Americans still confident of their victory rolled out the red carpet for the celebrated general as he landed in Saigon, showing him whatever he wished, from close-range fighting to large-scale deployments, and showering him with briefings, tours and dinners with assorted generals, including the wars commander, Gen. William Westmoreland.
Jerusalem, however, was less enthusiastic.
Responding to protestations in the Knesset, even from Dayans own Rafi faction, over a famous Israeli personality arguably taking sides in the conflict, foreign minister Abba Eban told the plenary he could not stop a private citizen from traveling wherever he wished. The Jewish state, however, had elaborate and sensitive interests in Asia, and would welcome any effort that would lead to opening negotiations for a settlement of just peace in this conflict.
This was 1966, when the IDFs main weaponry was European, and American aid was modest and strictly civilian. Israel, in short, owed America a lot less than it owes it today. Then again, Israels current response to the steadily escalating conflict between Russia and Ukraine smacks of the same reluctance to take sides displayed during the Vietnam War.
The only difference is that now there are many more reasons global, regional and Jewish to shun the international systems hottest flash point.
THE UKRAINIAN situation deteriorated twice this week. First, when the interim government in Kiev ordered, for the first time since Russias annexation of Crimea, military action, and secondly, when the pro-Russian secessionist euphoria spread beyond Ukraine, to Moldova.
With 40,000 Russian troops mobilized on its eastern border, and challenged by ethnic Russian militias roaming its eastern cities, Ukraine ordered a military operation. Retaking an airport lost previously to pro-Russian militias, it initially seemed as if the Ukrainians have a plan and know what they are doing.
However, what was initially trumpeted as a Ukrainian offensive soon proved hollow, when a lightly armored column was stopped in its tracks by unarmed pro-Russian civilians.
The seizure, at the same time, of Ukrainian armored vehicles elsewhere, and their display in the town of Slovyansk a day before three Russians were killed in a skirmish with Ukrainian forces, all raised fears that a bloody clash was but a matter of time. The roars of Ukrainian fighter jets above the flatlands east of the Dnieper River served as a reminder that, whether in terms of its size or resources, Ukraine is not Georgia.
If hostilities flare, the Red Army will sooner or later be seriously challenged, and fighting might be fierce and also protracted.
The West, meanwhile, remained perplexed.
As American, European and Ukrainian diplomats prepared to hold talks with Russia Thursday, US President Barack Obama again blamed the crisis on Moscow, but when asked to shift from rhetoric to action he failed to deliver more than the vague vow that each Russian attempt to destabilize Ukraine will bear consequences.
In Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was not much more specific when he said the American- led alliance will reinforce its presence along its eastern frontiers apparently referring to NATO members Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary, all former Warsaw Pact members bordering Ukraine.
Rasmussen had hardly finished his statement when fresh developments again exposed the West as responding to events rather than shaping them. In Moldova, the former Soviet republic of 3.5 million abutting southwestern Ukraine, the regional parliament of Transnistria formally asked Russia to recognize its secession.
A forlorn land where streets are still named after Marx and Lenin and the flag still sports the hammer and sickle, this esoteric provinces separatism would ordinarily inspire political parodies like Peter Sellerss The Mouse that Roared or Woody Allens Bananas.
But these are not ordinary times, and Transnistrias Russian longings raise suspicions of a grand plot, one masterminded in the Kremlin and aimed at reassembling some of the dismantled Soviet Union, if even gradually, piecemeal, and by what will be presented as demand from below.
In itself, Moldova may still seem marginal for Westerners, but the next candidate for such secessionist emasculation is Latvia, a NATO member more than twice the size of Belgium with a sizable Russian-speaking population directly opposite Stockholm, across the Baltic.
In short, at stake is a major clash between Europe and Russia, a confrontation in which America has taken sides hastily and now expects its allies to follow it as it stumbles further into this European fray.
The Jewish state, it appears, is politely rejecting this demand.
THERE WAS a brief moment during Israels infancy when it toyed with the idea of assuming a policy of neutrality between East and West. That quest quickly proved unrealistic, as the Arab states loomed prominently in what became the nonaligned bloc, while the Jewish state could fit nowhere but in the West, whether in terms of its ideals, economy or diplomacy.
That is why even during the Korean War, when David Ben-Gurion turned down a request to send troops to fight alongside the US-led international force, Israel did send the South medicines and food, even though the Jewish state was at the time so strapped that it rationed bread, milk and eggs.
By 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Israel had not even that minimal maneuver space.
Whereas America had by then become the IDFs main supplier, Moscow had severed ties with Jerusalem following the Six Day War and emerged as the center of anti-Israeli gravity, whether in terms of its diplomacy, propaganda, arms exports, emigration policy or oppression of the Jewish faith. It therefore went without saying, when the US decided to boycott the Moscow Olympics of 1980, that Israel would do the same as Uncle Sam.
Todays situation is different in just about every aspect.
First, Russia is not anti-Israel. Not only are relations between Jerusalem and Moscow normal, in many ways they are even warm. Traffic between the two countries is free and hectic, Russia has become Israels major oil supplier, it is a potentially deep destination for Israeli exports and the two countries are in the process of finalizing a free-trade agreement.
Then there is the Jewish aspect.
Though a million Jews have left, both Russia and Ukraine remain home to sizable Jewish communities.
According to last years World Jewish Population Survey there were 255,000 Jews in Russia and Ukraine, about a quarter of them in Ukraine.
Counting semi-Jews, as Israel must do, the number multiplies.
The Jewish state is therefore calculating its treatment of the Ukrainian conflict in a way that considers the fate of the Jews on both its sides.
Israels normalization of its ties with Russia is a major strategic asset, the happy aftermath of an epic struggle that was led jointly by Israeli leaders, American statesmen and the Jewish Diaspora. Barack Obama was too young to experience this hard-won struggle, but in Israel it is etched in every political mind, certainly that of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who joined that struggle as an ambassador at the UN, not to mention Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who was born and raised in Soviet Moldova.
Then there is the Middle East.
The past three years upheaval across the Arab world has for now resulted in increased Russian presence and diminishing American prestige. Obamas failed gambles in Egypt, where he chased Mubarak from power and then failed to avert the Muslim Brotherhoods removal, have resulted in previously unthinkable arms deals between Cairo and Moscow.
Meanwhile, the unfulfilled threat to hit Syria if it uses chemical weapons has further enhanced Russias position, as Bashar Assads loyal and efficient sponsor.
Faced with such a Russian comeback, Israel would be foolhardy to squander its hard-earned relations with post-Communist Russia.
Lastly, there is geography.
The New York Timess columnist Tom Friedman last week recalled that back in 1998 former US ambassador to Moscow George Kennan decried NATOs expansion, arguing the US was mindlessly provoking Russia and committing to defend countries it did not intend to defend.
Kennan, who died last decade at age 99, did not live to see this, but current events vindicate him. America is now embroiled in distant Ukraine, and should the conflict spill into one of its NATO neighbors, Washington will be even deeper in distant East European squabbles where it does not naturally belong.
Israels situation is the opposite of Americas: Ukraine is close, and Israel is not involved. This, then, is the background against which Israel avoided participating in last months UN General Assembly vote that condemned Russias annexation of Crimea, with a majority of 100 to 11, and 58 abstentions.
Neutrality in this conflict seems for now Israels only plausible choice, and Jerusalem apparently expected Washington to understand this, as indeed does the Israeli opposition, where no one has so far attacked this policy, not even Meretz chairperson and human-rights champion Zehava Gal-On, with or without connection to her own arrival here, as a child, from Soviet Lithuania.
That is also why Netanyahu, in a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week, reiterated Israels hope that the conflict in the Ukraine would be peacefully resolved just as Abba Eban once said of Vietnam.
Yes they can be neutral but only if they register first.
..................
Certainly a legitimate topic for an Israeli paper, but I still I find this a rather bizarre obsession on the part of the administration. The idea that Europe or the UN would be swayed by Israel's position is ludicrous. People on this site being good researchers, I asked the other day if anyone could direct me to criticism of the other 57 abstentions on the UN resolution. Absent that, the administrations hostility seems to be about Israel, not the Ukraine.
Why is Israel even in question on this? Has anyone checked with the Grand Duchy of Fenwick on how they stand?
As I noted on another thread, only three other foreign aid recipients vote with the US over 50% (Israel's over 90). Micronesia who isn't much involved here. The other two, Georgia and the Ukraine. Their voted have gotten them a lot.
Two words, “Babi Yar.”
Can you blame the Israelis for being less than enthused about helping the Ukrainians?
one side fought with the nazis , the other defeated them.
which side should we support?
“one side fought with the nazis , the other defeated them.”
Neither side fought with the Nazis. The Banderists - who had every reason to side with the Nazis they didn’t know over the Communist murderers they did know - are long since dead. And the Russians of today - thank God - are not the Soviets of 70 years ago. Saying that “one side fought with the Nazis” is like saying the South is still full of Confederate slavers when that is clearly not the case.
“which side should we support?”
How about the Ukrainians? It’s their country and they’re friendly to us.
It is a given that the Arab Spring was a disaster for America and Israel. Egypt, although governed by a heartless plutocrat, Mubraka, fell to the Muslim Brotherhood, which made Mubarak seem noble and compassionate, as they persecuted Jews, Christians, and secular Muslims.
When Obama decided to intervene in Syria he offered publicly the thought of doing so when it would have been two years two late to help the FSA, and would have helped Al Qaeda and other undesirables.
See a pattern here?
Why should Israel want to help Obama now?
Obama’s foreign policy has been anti-Israeli.
Going after Israel, though, helps to shore up his base, who - like many on the political spectrum - right now would like to stay out of this.
To provide cover for Western support of a fascist puppet government in Kiev.
When the author uses the term “semi-Jew,” what does it mean? Someone with one Jewish parent and one non-Jewish parent, or a non-Jewish person whose spouse is Jewish?
Israel will bomb Iran from Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan
I’ve never heard the term but I’d speculate he’s referring to individuals of Jewish ancestry who in no way affiliate with the Jewish community or Judaism. There are large numbers of those in the former USSR. A quarter to a third of the Russian immigrants to Israel are not Jewish, but eligible due to a Jewish parent or grandparent.
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.