Posted on 11/01/2002 8:46:14 AM PST by 1bigdictator
Israel Keeps Us Safe; We Keep It On the Verge of Extinction Steven Zak 01 November 2002 Email this story Print this story
As Israel´s self-proclaimed protector, we in the United States get testy when our little protege misbehaves. "Israel could have no better or stronger friend than the United States," Ari Fleischer scolded last year, after Ariel Sharon failed to express sufficient gratitude over US pressure to go easy on genocidal lunatics. More recently, we angrily pressed the Israelis to allow 20 child killers, holed up with Yasser Arafat, to escape to murder another day.
In truth, Israel is as much our protector as the other way around. We provide that country with aid, to be sure, but it more than reciprocates in intelligence and sheer military muscle. Israel mans the front against some of our most vicious enemies - Iran, Iraq, Syria and their terrorist proxies the Palestinian Authority and Hezbollah (The latter, operating just beyond the northern border of Israel and in league with al-Qaeda and the PA, has murdered nearly 300 Americans - until 9/11 more than any other terrorist group in the world).
When "allies" like France and Germany denounce us for pursuing the removal of Saddam Hussein, Israel unwaveringly stands by our side. Even dovish Foreign Minister Shimon Peres recently described Israel as a "loyal soldier" for the US against Iraq. And, unlike in Britain, the majority of the Israeli public extends us its support as well.
Now and then, in passing, we actually express some gratitude. President Bush once said that the United States and Israel have a "special relationship." Dick Cheney added that the "two countries are full partners in the cause of defeating this threat to the civilized world." But if so, why is our "partner" never welcome to join us in battle? We´ll fight alongside Canadians, Brits, Norwegians - just about anyone except Israelis (Is that what makes our relationship "special"?). In recent weeks, over 1,000 US Special Ops have been training in Jordan with troops from Jordan, Oman and Kuwait. Yet, as in Gulf War I and in Afghanistan, we intend in Gulf War II to make Israel a pariah. Even if they´re attacked we don´t want them involved in Iraq, for fear of offending the Arabs (Interestingly, we don´t worry that involving the Arabs might lose us the support of Israel). This is a profound insult. As the Jerusalem Post wrote, "the only nation that does not have a right to defend itself is a state that has no right to exist."
Of course, if we were ready to forcefully acknowledge that right, we´d have our embassy in Israel´s capital - as we do in all of the other countries with whom we have diplomatic relations. As a candidate for president, George W. Bush promised to, at long last, move our embassy from Tel Aviv pursuant to the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. Once in office, though, he instead invoked successive waivers of the law just as Bill Clinton had done before him. When Congress recently passed another law, which requires the United States to at least identify Jerusalem as Israel´s capital in our official documents, Bush made clear that he won´t implement that one either.
Our official, unseemly propensity to accede to the world´s characterization of Israel as barely legitimate filters down into our deepest thinking, even finding inadvertent expression by op-ed pundits and news writers who have no consciously hostile intent toward the Jewish state.
Regarding 9/11, for instance, Andrew Sullivan wrote that of all foreign leaders, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is "the one figure who seemed genuinely to understand the gravity of what had happened." Really? Ariel Sharon, unacquainted with terrorism, had no clue? That´s undoubtedly not what Sullivan meant to imply. But how easily an ally we habitually treat as invisible can just slip our minds.
As when the Associated Press wrote that "British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been Bush´s main ally on Iraq."
Or when the editors of the National Review Online listed US allies offering support against Iraq, naming Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Britain - but not Israel.
Armaud de Borchgrave, in the Washington Times, wrote that there "are only two countries in the Middle East" where Americans are popular among the masses - Iran and Iraq.
Maybe he meant only two Muslim countries. Or maybe, in a momentary lapse, he just imagined the Middle East sans a certain democratic state whose name, in a perverse deference to enemies, we tend to whisper discreetly.
This much is clear: If the moral beacon of the world can´t resist posturing as if our best ally didn´t exist, someday, maybe, it won´t. -------------------------------------------- Steven Zak is a writer and attorney in California
Ping.
The Jihadis turn to the Koran for inspiration to murder non-Muslims, the issue of Israel is a mere smoke screen to divert the attention of the more gullible elements in our society.
Yeah instead the existing Arab states or those emerging at the time had a great deal of empathy and sometimes outright support for the Nazis.
I agree w/ you; it is outstanding that countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar... ect.... collectively receive much more aid then Israel receives, on an annual basis, because they convert that support into so many wholesome programs that benefit American interests.
American tax dollars fund Madrasas's in these respective countries with a curriculum of Wahabi flavored Shari'a law... you know the strain of Islam that teaches a devout Muslim must lie and deceive non-Muslims b/c we are kafirs. Moreover, it teaches the expansion of radical Islam is the paramount duty of every Muslim.
So they don't believe in multiculturalism or pluralistic societies. So they believe the presence of Christians in any country, even if Christians are the majority (Philippines), is blasphemous to their faith. So they don't respect cultural or religious freedoms in their own country or abroad. So they don't tolerate fundamental human rights of women or any non-Muslim. I agree with you, funding these regimes and fanatics with the resources to further radicalize their populations is a good thing. Who cares if some of this money gets funneled into terrorist operations against the civilized world? I agree with you, it's a small price to pay to placate our Arab allies who show us so much mutual respect.
On the other hand we have foreign aid to Israel, and I agree with you, it is frustrating that $.75 of every dollar in aid is reinvested in our defense industry that then supplies Israel w/ military hardware, and thereby comes back into our economy. It's so much more fun under the Arab model of return on investment where we get to gamble and anticipate the end-product of this support... will it be domestic terror, children's textbooks filled w/ virulent anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda or funding of contraband black market materials for WMDs. You are right to only criticize support for Israel and remain silent on our support for Islamic ppls and countries... My favorite game at the casinos is roulette; it gives the worst odds and usually leads to an unfavorable outcome.
Ouch! That irony stings! BTW, why $250 billion? It should be in trillions-quadrillions! The Joos control all American capital, as you know
Bump.
Assuming $3 billion annual for Israel and $2 billion annual for Egypt, the cost of Camp David is around $115 billion (5 bil/yr * 23 yrs). I guess if you used inflation-adjusted dollars it would probably add up to the equivalent of a quarter-trillion in "2002 money", but not in actual dollars.
Realistically, this represents the cost of maintaining an Anti-Israeli foreign policy.
Yes, Anti-Israeli.
Israel "gave up" more than she "gained" in the Camp David accords, all for a "peace treaty" scrap of paper which everyone knows will be immediately torn up and repudiated by Egypt if Islamic Fundamentalists ever come to power therein. Meanwhile, Egypt got the Land, the Oil, and US taxpayer subsidies.
In short, Egypt made out like a bandit.
Meanwhile, the US taxpayer gets shafted both ways -- they get to reimburse Israel for her losses, as well as pay Egypt for her gains.
The sensible thing would've been to adopt a Neutralist foreign policy, paying neither side one red cent of US Taxpayer money and leaving Israel as the dominant Military Power in the Middle East. Instead, we adopted an Anti-Israel foreign policy, and we have paid through the nose.
The "inner party" lobby in US Middle East policy is hopelessly divided against itself.
I agree that the best attitude for the US would be to stay out of it entirely. We'd have saved about a hundred billion dollars over the last 23 years, and Israel would still be in control of the Sinai (and the Sinai Oilfields)... and the Arabs could go pound sand.
Not to mention eating 39 scuds with ? as payloads.
Israel bump.
A7 bump.
Ofeq 5 bump.
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.