United States and Israel at a ‘Crossroads’?

Ted Belman. I beg to differ. Yes Israel has turned right/conservative but so has America. The liberal left got slaughtered in Nov ’10. The last poll records that Americans are 3% more likely to identify as conservatives than three years ago.The Tea Party has shifted the balance and Republicans are totally in sync with the new Israel. The problem is that Jewish American and the Democratic Party that they embrace are the ones out of sync like the Left in Israel. It has been acknowledged that US/Israel strategic and military cooperation is at an all time high. The only thing out of sync was Obama’s decision to undermine Mubarak, attack Libya and embrace the Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

Further more, after saying Meirsheimer and Walt were flawed, he embraces them. He quotes Gates and could similarly quote Pres Clinton, both of whom attacked Israel. Not only were they both wrong but they both represent Obama’s attempt to undermine Israel. The three of them aren’t in sync with the facts or the American people. Malka is also shilling for Obama when he says that Israel should sacrifice itself to American interests. CSIS may be Non-partisan but that doesn’t preclude them being left of center.

Sorry, the more I read the article the more I disagree with it. The title is a lie. He said Israel should wean itself off the aid. Like Meirsheimer and Walt he looks upon it as aid but in reality it is compensation for the many things Israel gives the US in the way human intelligence, technological enhancement etc. Many Senators have acknowledged that the US wouldn’t give it if she didn’t get more in return. One general acknowledged that if the US didn’t have Israel there she would have to station an aircraft carrier there. But the relationship is also detrimental to Israel because she is required to buy more expensive hardware from the US than she could get elsewhere and she is not permitted to sell in many places or compete with US military sales. Finally, how does our separation solve the Palestinian conflict? Instead the US should do away with the stupid tw0state solution and support Israel’s annexation of Judea and Samaria in whole or in part.

Think-tanker Haim Malka calls for less military aid, for Israel’s good

By Marc Tracy, Tablet Magazine

Haim Malka, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think-tank in Washington, D.C., has published a new study, “Crossroads,” that has gotten some attention. Its central argument is that the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship” is constituted to exist between two countries that in fact no longer do exist—rather, Israel and the United States have changed profoundly, and neither side has fully reckoned with this yet. For example: “Today,” he writes, “Israel’s Jewish population is more nationalistic, religiously conservative, and hawkish on foreign policy and security affairs than that of even a generation ago, and it would be unrecognizable to Israel’s founders.” What is called for, he argues, is a re-evaluation of the alliance that sees strong ties maintained but also a decrease in U.S. military aid—for the good, above all, of Israel’s. I chatted with Malka recently about his report.

How has Israel changed?

Israeli society is very different from the Israel most Americans think they know. Most American Jews have this idea of Israeli society that is idealistic and outdated. That’s in part because the Israelis most Americans interact with have been mostly secular, liberal Israelis who speak English well and have similar worldviews. Israel is much more complex and diverse.

The first trend that I pointed out is that in the last generation, once-marginal communities like the ultra-Orthodox and Russian-speaking Israelis are now participating in Israeli public life in new ways, while the secular, liberal elite, the part of Israeli society that most Americans are familiar with, have retreated to some degree.

The second political dynamic that the report raises is the breakdown of the left and the creation of a new center-right political constellation in Israeli politics. The distribution of Knesset seats in the last decade illustrates this clearly. In the 1999 elections, left-wing parties—Labor, Meretz, etc.—controlled a little less than half of the Knesset. In the 2009 elections, that number dropped by half, so they now only control 30 out of 120 seats. Political ideology has always been balanced between the right and left in Israel. Today Kadima has become the political counterweight to the Likud, but with no attachment to the secular liberal values of Israel’s founding fathers.

Could the tent protests of this summer be seen as a reaction to this?
What’s interesting is that so far the social protest movement hasn’t taken on a political agenda that the traditional left or the Labor Party has been able to harness in any way. In fact no political party can claim to represent that popular sentiment.

And how has America changed?

Then there’s the growing frustration of many liberal American Jews with Israeli policies. Peter Beinart did a good job of articulating that estrangement especially among the younger generations. This isn’t a new development—this liberal disaffection started in the ‘80s with the invasion of Lebanon and then the first intifada—but it’s intensifying and threatening to erode Israel’s connection with a large segment of Diaspora Jewry.

Part of this liberal frustration stems from a misreading of Israel, which hangs on to these idealistic notions of Israel as a liberal society.

So what does your report say we should do to address this?
What I’m arguing in the report is that we need to acknowledge these trends and not pretend that there’s no problem. The dramatic events in the Middle East over the last six months highlighted by the ousting of President Mubarak should remind us that there are no certainties in such a fluid environment. Let’s figure out how to strengthen the U.S.-Israel partnership and adapt to the changes.

First is that Israel and the United States need to restore a sense of common mission. Over the last forty years, the U.S. and Israel have always shared a common strategic outlook. Today, it seems that strategic priorities and assessments are increasingly diverging on the most pressing issues, most importantly Iran and the Palestinian issue. And I think neither American nor Israeli officials can articulate their common mission.

It’s hard for me to see any common regional strategy that doesn’t address the Palestinian conflict. Not because the Palestinian issue is the root of all evil or its resolution will transform the region—it won’t—but because as long as it continues, it will be manipulated by political actors across the region to undermine the United States and Israel and cause tension in the relationship. The problem is that a resolution of the conflict seems increasingly unlikely in the immediate future.

At one point, you write, “‘Israel can only depend on itself’ has become a regular refrain both inside and outside of government.” Do you think that strain of thinking is dominant?

There are significant doubts in Israel today about the meaning of America’s commitments to Israel’s security. There’s a paradox, that at a time when many Israelis believe Israel needs to become more self-reliant and that they can only depend on themselves, they are growing more dependent on the United States to address and mediate both their diplomatic and security challenges.

So should the U.S. cut military aid?

It has to come from Israel! The point I raise in the report—and this is consistent with the views of many Israeli officials—is that Israel’s long-term security interests and viability are better-served by being less dependent on the United States. Some level of interdependency is important. But the long term Israeli goal should be to wean itself off U.S. military aid in exchange for greater military-to-military cooperation, joint research and development of new defense systems, and greater Israeli access to American military technology. Essentially maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge.

Do you think this is likely to happen?
I’m not predicting anything. What I’ve done is pointed out trends that are affecting the relationship and will likely continue to strain and erode relations in the future. The U.S.-Israel partnership is strong and ingrained in America’s and Israel’s foreign policies and societies. It’s a deep partnership which has weathered many storms. The strength and durability of this partnership has been its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. We need to acknowledge and understand these changes now while there is an opportunity to adapt.

There is more than one area of dependence. Is the United States right to pledge to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution giving the Palestinian Authority full membership?

The United States is in a bind either way. The administration understands that U.N. resolutions declaring a Palestinian state will actually undermine efforts to resume negotiations. Israel is facing international isolation, and the Palestinian strategy will likely deepen the diplomatic assault against Israel. At the same time, the administration is coming up short, with no clear practical strategy to get the two sides talking again.

You write: “While the core argument of the Mearsheimer-Walt tracts—that the United States went to war in Iraq because of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States—was seriously flawed, the authors reignited an old debate over Israel’s strategic value to the United States that had been largely dormant for decades.” You don’t really address the less controversial part of their thesis, which is that the special relationship is frequently contrary to American interests. How do you feel about that?

I point out in the book how Mearsheimer and Walt’s arguments are seriously flawed. Still, there is a perception that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complicating American interests in the Middle East which has become widely accepted within the U.S. national security establishment and bureaucracy. More than in the past, many American officials see the Israeli government as the biggest impediment to reaching an agreement because Israel holds most of the cards. Look at the Gates statement that recently came out. For several decades, Israel has consistently proven that it’s an asset to the United States in the Middle East. And now that the region is in turmoil, the burden is on Israel to continue proving it is an asset to U.S. interests in the region because Israel has the most to lose from any deterioration in US-Israeli relations.

September 27, 2011 | 30 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

30 Comments / 30 Comments

  1. “How come it says there are 25 comments, and I can only see 13?”

    13 threads, Vinnie

    — containing a total of 25 comments.

  2. “People who don’t behave in a manner that… [conveys] decorum don’t deserve to be treated with decorum.”

    Of course.

    But that’s not the reason for decorum.

    The reason is the forum itself.

    Lots of other sites that I visit from time-to-time have “comments” sections that are typically crammed with such vile garbage — posted by everybody-&-their-Aunt-Mathilda, it seems — that I almost never post there. To do so would be to cast pearls before swine. I may read an article there, but once that’s done, I’m gone. (I’ve got a strong stomach, but only so much time.)

    Don’t know if something similar is what was at the core of Armaf’s complaint — but in any case, I don’t think I’m alone in my attitude, Vinnie.

    Here anyway, we certainly don’t pull any punches, but we do tend — for the most part (and notwithstanding Amraf’s lament) — to steer clear of the grosser epithets, the bodily fluids, the maternal ancestry in direct allusions to the barnyard, and all the rest of the post-pubescent catechism. And that’s just as well, because the matter we’re here for isn’t going to be fought-out here anyway. This is a place for sharing (& refining) ideas to USE in the fight out there. And the better the company we attract to ourselves for that purpose, the more effective the synergy that will be generated to that end.

    You’re right to say that you can’t “convince” our committed adversaries of anything, that civil debate is wasted on them.

    But so is committing our substance to “calling them out.”

    I mean, if that’s what it took to call them out, I’d say, go for it. But it isn’t; that’s not what it accomplishes. It just gives us a momentary rush of judgmental energy (or, more accurately the sensation of energy), which in the end only vitalizes & invigorates the opposition to do more of the same.

    Then too, TBS, name-calling may have its place, per occasion — but the more sparingly it’s applied, the more it retains its power. . . .

    One man’s opinion.

  3. How come it says there are 25 comments, and I can only see 13?


    People who don’t behave in a manner that warrants decorum don’t deserve to be treated with decorum. I’d hope that some of those on the “other side” of this issue, who behave like whores for the Arabs/Moslems, as well as Jews who behave like “kapos” (my preferred term for this particular animal is “judenrat”), see themselves called out for this, on sites like these. Maybe then, they’d at least see that they don’t have us fooled, and there are people who see them for what they really are.

    As to the matter of Christie having to answer to his Moslem constituents:

    Does he? Consider this. Back in the 1930s, the Nazis funded the “German-American Bund”, which was aimed at Americans of German ethnicity – estimated at about a third or more of the U.S. population of that time, full or in part – so as to promote neutrality in U.S. policy vis-a-vis any conflict Germany might enter into, or even better, pro-German sentiment.

    At their height, the Bund claimed about 40,000 active members nationally, numbers which may well have been inflated. That was a piss poor performance on their part. They failed utterly in their mission. To the great credit of German Americans, they overwhelmingly rejected the Nazi message, and when asked to, sharply saluted and fought where asked, to include against German forces in Europe, without hesitation.

    I never heard of any German American rolling a gernade into the tent of U.S. commanders on the eve of an offensive in Europe, or opening fire on a bunch of his fellow troops at a base here in the U.S., shouting “Heil Hitler!”.

    Can the same be said for Moslems here today? For some, yes. But for far too many, no. The “dual loyalty” charge leveled at Jews who support Israel is as outrageous as the moral inversion we see when Israel is compared with Nazi Germany. There is no question but that a very large part of the Moslem community here identifies very strongly with the agenda and values of the enemies not only of Israel, but of the U.S. No member of Congress should find themselves in a position to kowtow to such a “constituency”, though some do….and some don’t.

    I live in a district that includes what was, at the time it was built in the 1980s, the largest purpose-built mosque in the U.S. We have a large Moslem community here, though I don’t know how it compares to Christie’s. My Congressman is, like Christie, a Republican, and he is also a very good friend of Israel. I don’t know how much the Moslems complain to him or about him, but it is clear he ignores them, and gets re-elected every time. And Christie is NOT a member of Congress, anyway. He’s the governor of New Jersey. So, one would expect that he’d represent ALL of New Jersey, and not just the interests of a Moslem community that happens to be near where he lives.

  4. “For all the years I’ve been at this, fighting with editors, columnists, professors, etc., who are committed lackeys of the “other side”, I can tell you that civil debate is wasted on them, except when before an audience you intend to impress towards your point of view in a public setting.”

    Yes, but that last is just it:

    I know it’s easy to forget, Vinnie, but the truth is that even on this site (or for that matter, any other one), every comment that one posts is on view for far more than merely the specific individual to whom it may have been directly addressed. For better or for worse, we ALWAYS are — to one degree or another — in a “public setting.”

    The question is (as I see it), does it cost me any more, in terms of sheer energy expenditure, to maintain a minimal level of decorum?

  5. “He is not a conservative… “

    Actually, he’s got a lot of conservative instincts going for him.

    …and he has ties with the islamic center of Passaic County.

    It’s important to understand that he has one of the biggest Muslim constituencies in the country. Passaic County, for better or worse, has the highest concentration of Muslims of any US county outside the State of Michigan — and he cannot ignore them.

    That may have something to do with his saying that this isn’t really his time. . . . (or however he put it the other day).

  6. “I do know the Republican party to be at least 75%-80% progressive [Marxist]–as they vote the same UnAmerican way on the majority of issues as do those from the Democrat [Marxist] party…”

    Then, that’s the basis on which you call them “Marxist”? — because they often vote the same way that Demo’s do?

    So if the country’s biggest producer of… (ahem)… “adult” films… opposes drunk driving

    — and the little old ladies’ library society ALSO opposes driving under the influence —

    does that make the latter a bunch of porno freaks?

    (Who knew? But then, I guess one just never knows. . . .)

    DWELLER’S THIRD LAW [informally known as the “short-&-sweet” one] OF POLITICAL TROUBLESHOOTING
    (now, take good notes — there’ll be pop quiz in the morning. . . . ok, ok, after Simchas Torah):

    Syllogistic argument is the stuff of which demagoguerie is made.

  7. According to a very recent poll, US citizen trust Brits far more than Israel 65% vs 18%.
    The “uneducated US Citizen” are totally ignorant of the “secret economic war of oil/gas” between the 2 countries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean between the US and GB. They both use the Jews/Israel to get at each other!!! and to screw the Arabs at the expense of the Jews.

  8. BlandOatmeal:

    I’m not so worried about Obama winning in 2012; I’m confident he’s toast unless he pulls a “Marcos”. What I’m a lot more worried about than that is three things:

    1. We’ve already waited too long to deal with Iran’s nukes without a big mess, but their nuclear program MUST be stopped, and probably sooner rather than later (as in, before the next president takes office). There was a very revealing recent statement by French leaders hinting at real action before long by uspecified parties. Obama did release – finally – some high-tech bunker busters to Israel. My fear here is a replay of the Carter admin’s hostage rescue fiasco. I just hope to G-d we haven’t or won’t wait until a strike becomes well-nigh impossible to carry out, and then when it is, is done so in a half-hearted way that makes us look – or Israel, or both – like idiots and leaves Iran’s program largely intact.

    2. Above issue and probable non re-election aside, Obama is definitely NOT out of tricks on this PA UDI gambit. Note that despite all the platitudes, he simply re-affirmed his positions from his May 19 speech. Note that he also included rhetoric that clearly put this issue at the TOP of his foreign poilcy agenda, where it has always been, and even put it at the top of the UN’s agenda (where it has always been), “…in the weeks and months to come.” Now, consider that the UNSC is NOT voting on the PA bid for the time being; they may consider this for as long as “months” before voting…giving Obama plenty of time to apply pressure – direct and indirect – for more Israeli concessions, holding the vote over their head. Given his past performance, I can EASILY see him reneging and abstaining or even supporting the PA’s UN bid, blaming Israeli “intransigence”. Finally, it didn’t get much press, but a high Saudi official recently declared that SA will end their “special relationship” with the U.S. if the U.S. vetoes the Pali gambit on the UNSC. They may be bluffing – and I wouldn’t care if they weren’t; good riddance – but we all know who Obama values as an ally between Israel and SA…and it ain’t Israel. In short, this game is FAR from over. Obama is NOT tied to vetoing the PA bid; do NOT count on this, election or no election. A rational pol wouldn’t take that risk, but Obama’s hatred of Israel goes well beyond rationality. Always remember that.

    3. I anticipate a big ’08-style market crash within a year, maybe before the end of this year. A crisis like that, as I’ve posted elsewhere around here, could drive people into the arms of a Republican Saudi stooge, such as Ron Paul. He’s not doing well now, and that is to the good, of course. But remember, in September of ’07, who the heck thought Obama was doing to top the Dem ticket??

  9. Hi, Vinnie.

    An interesting bit of intelligence on my family and friends back in the Midwest. As for the Brits, we have cousins there; and they seem clueless about God and about the Bible. You correctly said that the Evangelicals are the backbone of support for Israel in the US. That’s because they respect God and the Bible, and consequently stand with His people. The Brits do not have this anchor, nor the rest of West Europeans. They are open to any wild, untenable idea; and they are paying the price with an Islamic time bomb in their midst.

    I enjoyed reading about Obama vetoing the Pal UN application. He’s really strapped right now, having to do things he doesn’t want to do — because there’s an election coming up and the American people are, as you have noticed, pro-Israel. God help Israel, though, if he wins in November next year.

  10. Armaf,

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck.

    Speaking for myself, when I see such incredible, outrageous disregard for elemental facts, logic, history, and morality, on the part of people in responsible positions in government and media circles who are clearly educated and informed and who should know better, then I can’t draw any other conclusions, and I call them out for what they are.

    I have been involved in countless debates with foes of Israel in the media, and in political circles, in my local area. I’ve tried again and again to confront them with “the issues”, as you say, the facts, the history, etc., stuff that is readily documented and grasped by any minimally fair-minded person as genuine, to be answered by half-baked arguments on a good day, and usually even less than that.

    I don’t know what side of this you are on, or how much experience you have on the media/PR “battlefield” standing up for Israel. I don’t have as much as some, but I have plenty more than most. Take it from me: We are at a point where no matter what we do, we are not going to “win the debate” with our enemies, at least in terms of dealing with them directly. They are not listening at all.

    That does not mean that the more civil means of approaching this do not have a purpose: Civility, facts, logic, etc, are important insofar as they strengthen potential allies in their convictions, and convince the “interested bystanders”. But in dealing with our committed adversaries, if you think there is some “silver bullet” application of the right “facts”, or “logic”, or whatever, that will make someone like Christiana Arabwhore say “Aha! OK, now I see what you’re saying, Mr. Zionist. You may really have a good point. I never thought of that!”, then you probably also think there is some magic concession that BB can come up with that will bring the PA back to the table for a final peace agreement, so that Everyone Can Live in Peace and Plenty Forevermore.

    For all the years I’ve been at this, fighting with editors, columnists, professors, etc., who are committed lackeys of the “other side”, I can tell you that civil debate is wasted on them except when before an audience you intend to impress towards your point of view in a public setting. In dealing with them directly. or mobilizing the like-minded against their nonsense, calling them out for what they are is appropriate. I cannot think of any other explanation for their behavior than that of – take your pick – craven cowardice, naked soulless greed, or bigoted malevolence. They must be discredited and defeated outright, and part of discrediting them involves calling them out for what they are, when they clearly deserve this. You can’t “convince” them of anything. Forget about it.

  11. Steven L,

    I know very well that Israel has never asked anyone to fight her wars for her. From a military point of view, she’s the most self-reliant ally the U.S. has. She’d be pretty happy simply to be “allowed” to fight her wars without the U.S. “leash” holding her back from winning in many cases (e.g., 1973, 1982, 2006, 2009).

    I’m talking about perceptions among Americans, and that is important as to how this translates politically. Many feel that an impending conflict with Iran is mostly about “defending Israel”. That is Ron Paul’s contention, and many others. Many others realize that Iran considers the U.S. the “Great Satan” and Israel only the “Little Satan”; Glenn Beck rightly promotes this point (and look what happened to him). Also, it is not lost on most Americans, that despite all of Obama’s “outreach” and appeasement, we’ve actually had a major spike in attempted and actual terror attacks here since he’s taken office. Lots of Americans have the common sense to see who the real troublemakers are, PC b.s. aside, quite apart from our support of Israel (and most of these Americans happen to be Republicans).

    It is simplicity itself to disprove the canard that the Islamists are mad at us only or even significantly due to our support of Israel. But as absurd as that may be, it is incredible how many people in very responsible positions, past and present, and perhaps even future, believe this crap (e.g., Obama & Co.).

  12. Laura:

    The GOP can win with a banana peel by November of 2012. Obama is clearly on a path to suffer the same fate as Carter, only more so, and it is obvious sooner in the cycle. I think there is a greater chance of Obama pulling a “Marcos” – declaring martial law and suspending elections – than there is of him winning in a free and fair (mostly) election.

    What you write about Christie proves my point that I make at length above, concerning my “British Model”. Just what “GOP establishment” backs Christie? Surely not the same one that backed Giuliani – the presumed GOP front-runner four years ago right now – or McCain. Who ran then that fit Chrisie’s profile, that was allowed on the national debate stage? Was there even ONE Islamist appeasement wimp? No, there wasn’t.

    What changed so much in four years that the GOP “establishment” does NOT want a genuine conservative? What happened to all those Republicans who idolize Reagan? Last time I checked, there were plenty of them still around. Why would elements of this “GOP establishment” be BEGGING Christie to run, if he is a fraud on the core values the overwhelming majority of Republicans support, AND an Islamist appeasment wimp/Israel basher??

    Answer: Again, the Petrodollar Pimps are attempting to totally corrupt this country at the national leadership level (they’ve already got academia and the media, plus Dept. of State and segments of the Pentagon). They’ve got two irons in this fire: Ron Paul, and Chris Christie. So far, Paul – despite all sorts of attempts in superficially “prestigious” venues like the Atlantic Monthly to dress him up as something other than the dingaling he clearly is – is crashing and burning. So, now they are getting ready for “plan C” (Christie), who will also hopefully crash and burn.

    Then, they’re pretty much ouf of ammo. Plan “A” – Obama – has largely failed up to now. At least he has turned out to be far less effective than they’d clearly hoped. Plan “B” – Paul – isn’t working out so great either (but don’t count him out; a big market crash could drive a lot of desperate frightened voters into his arms, the same tactic they used for the virtual “coup d’etat” that installed Obama). Christie is the last arrow in their quiver for the 2012 election.

    I’ll throw a small party if January 21st, 2013, dawns with someone other than Obama, Paul, or Christie in the WH. A VERY small party if it is Romney, in which case I suspect we’re back to GWB-style immediate pre-Obama business as usual. But even if we get a Palin, or Cain, or Perry – these I expect to be robustly pro-Israel to perhaps an historic degree – they’ll have a lot of cleaning up to do at State. And then the media and academia scenes will still be there, throwing up flak and churning out brand new legions of budding Christiana Arabwhores, respectively.

    I know this sounds outrageous, but some part of me really does hope that at some point, in some scenario, a bunch of nuclear weapons are fired at Saudi Arabia, destroying them completely. ‘Cuz then, the checks will stop coming. The journalists will have to start earning an honest living, and actually caring about things like ratings and credibility. The univesities won’t be getting any more fat checks for setting up Israel bashing departments. What a new, stark dawn that will be……Who will they find to sell out to next? China? At least the Chinese aren’t anti-Semites!

  13. I never wrote the tea party has anything in common with the Democrat party. I do know the Republican party to be at least 75%-80% progressive [Marxist]–as they vote the same UnAmerican way on the majority of issues as do those from the Democrat [Marxist] party–as such they are in fact a big part of the problem. If you were paying attention–you too would know this.

  14. Malka should go back to school and read the Balfour declaration and the conclusions of the San Remo declaration and then come back with some education.
    To summarize Vinie point of vue: the West (Christians and ex Christians (= seculars) and Muslims by enlarge are fed-up with their big brother the Jews. Oil and gas are one parameter of the West problematic and the Muslim “madness” is the second issue. The US should learn quickly what dhimmitude is about. The US administration refuses to educate the Americans.
    Israel has never asked anyone to fight its wars. All the US wars are US wars and have nothing to do with Israel.
    The West and the Muslims can’t face each other and use Israel as a punching ball.
    Neither the republicans nor the democrats are pro Jews. That is a fact of life. In Europe it is the same.
    Indians and Chinese are probably more philosemites.

    Jews are on their own. What is new? To recognize it should inspire us.

  15. Do any of your correspondents really think that slinging around epithets such as “whore,” “kapo,” etc., adds anything to the discussion? Stop foaming at the mouth and just address the issues, why don’t you?

  16. It is unfair to both the US and Israel to treat Israel as some kind of natural ally. Israel, as a Jewish state, cannot have too much in common with the US which has no official or even historical national religion. The history of Israel is the history of the Jewish people and their religious beliefs. There simply is no other way of looking at it.

    But the US, as a country born of certain principles, naturally upholds the existence and security of the state of Israel as a Jewish state. The US recognizes such a thing as universal history and the struggle for religious freedom in that history. Certainly the struggle for religious freedom is a dominating part of Jewish history and the restoration of the state of Israel is one of human history’s most important successes. Violent reaction against the state of Israel is an affront to the US and all freedom loving peoples and Israel deserves the support from the US in defending itself against aggression and securing the integrity of its borders.

    There are many in the world who claim to love Israel who are not Jewish, but if they do not uphold and stand for Israel as a Jewish state with an open future as a Jewish state, then they are no friend to either the Jews or Israel. And it needs to be emphasized that Israel is a state. It is a country, not a self governing ghetto in “Palestine”. It is a nation among nations.

    Militarily, the world is changing. It is becoming easier and easier for small countries like Israel to defend themselves against larger and more formidable forces. Israel knows this. Israel should not serve as some kind of guinea pig for technical advances in military hardware for the US. It should also not serve as a job generator for the US military suppliers. If Israel gets US aide for its defense, it should be able to spend it like it wants to and not just funnel it back to US contractors who have no real interest in Israel’s defense needs.

  17. The Republican party is not totally in sync with the so called tea party–the Republican party is in large measure part of the problem

    I agree with this. For instance, the GOP establishment does not want a tea party candidate as the nominee and are trying to force Chris Christie upon us. They are begging him to run. He is not a conservative, and he has ties with the islamic center of Passaic County. And the GOP establishment is certainly going to do its best to cover that up. Like the Dems, they do not care what is good for the country but what best suits the interest of their party. And they believe they can win with Christie, so they will sell out the country to the muslim brotherhood. Yes the Republican party is indeed part of the problem.

  18. C.R. writes:
    The Republican party is not totally in sync with the so called tea party–the Republican party is in large measure part of the problem as they for the most are Marxists–like those in the Democrat party.

    Either you don’t know Republicans or you don’t know Marxism, or, God forbid, you’re out of your freaking mind.

    There is nothing in common between the Tea Party and the modern Democrats – so the Tea Party will vote almost exclusively for Republicans. Many of the most influential Republicans are either members of the Tea Party or listen carefully to what is going on within the Tea Party movement – which is not closely organized but they rally around the philosophical principles that made this country great.

    Charlie writes:
    I keep tellin ya all along time for Jews to leave US of A,

    Charlie, please stop whatever you are smoking or drinking.

  19. I’m somewhere between Ted and Malka.

    My perspective, for what it is worth, is that of a 50-year-old American Jew who served in the U.S. Army (1984-88), went to school at schools of some rating (U Michigan Ann Arbor, U Chicago; Had Mearsheimer for three classes and worked for him as a research assistant – gave no clue as to what he’d become [I think he’s on the Saudi payroll] – and had one class with Walt [he was very open in his sympathies even then]).

    Today, I work in a manufacturing enterprise in the Midwest alongside many “heartlander” Joe and Jane six-packs, and have been involved in Israel advocacy at the grassroots level on a volunteer basis for about eight years now. Visited Israel once in 2007. Have known many Arabs/Moslems in my time, through academia, the military, etc.

    All that said….

    Here’s where I’d agree with Ted: Republicans are mostly – though not entirely – pro-Israel on a sincere level. Some of that is the influene of Evangelicals, who number an estimated 100 million according to poll data collected in 2005. Some of that is also common-sense national security. Republicans – except for the isolationist wing represented by the Ron Paul crowd – have a more clear-eyed view of the War on Terror, and rightly perceive Israel as a key ally in this war, not unlike the front-line role played by Britain vis-a-vis Nazi Europe during WW2.

    Ted, don’t take TOO much comfort from the high level of military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel. That is also an intelligence gathering mechanism. Remember, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia had a lot of “joint training” and such before the war, mostly to spy on each other. It is also a mechanism that allows U.S. commanders to maintain ties to their Israeli counterparts from a purely HUMINT point of view, relationships that are meant to be activated if the U.S. sees Israel is about to do something “rash” (“Hey there, General Ashkenazi, ole’ buddy ole’ pal, how come you’re spinning up all those fighters and deploying your navy? Not about to attack Iran, are you? You really think that’s a good idea? Can we talk about this?”).

    My experience in the U.S. military was very mixed, but overall, not very positive. Most direct anti-Semitism I’ve ever experienced. A lot of the career U.S. military really do not like Israel or Jews. Others have great admiration for Israel. Many others have, over the past decade, spent an awful lot of time around Moslem “allies” in places like Pakistan and Iraq, where they are exposed to nonstop whining about Israel. Think of certain comments recently made by Gen. Patraeus. This has a corrosive effect, even if it is taken with a grain of salt. But, our Moslem “allies” often turn out to be so treacherous, on balance, I think more U.S. military than not would grudgingly choose Israel over them as allies.

    Which leads me to my next point: America – and particularly the U.S. military and their families – are sick and tired of overseas commitments. I’ve heard anecdotally that Ron Paul is VERY popular among them. I can understand that. The isolationist mood here is VERY strong; Americans are scared to death of the fiscal situation here, as well they should be. Entitlements are the biggest part of this, but the billions we spend on wars alongside ingrate allies (e.g., Pakistan) really does piss people off.

    SO, while most Americans favor Israel over her adversaries, many Americans are VERY leary of getting dragged into any more wars over anything for anyone. There is a fear – however justified or not – that our alliance with Israel will get us into yet another war. The tension between war weariness on the one hand, and the recognition that the threat from Islamists has not receded and the understanding of Israel’s value in helping to fight the same, is of greater relevance at the grassroots level than the tension between pro- versus anti-Israeli segments. I can assure you all that at the popular level, the anti-Israel crowd is greatly outnumbered, though they are not insignificant.

    But the bad guys have COMPLETELY corrupted the media here. I can’t overstate this. Outside of the editorial page of the WSJ and Sean Hannity on FOX, Israel has virtually NO friends in the national-level media here. Most might as well be the BBC; it is THAT bad. It is amazing pro-Israel sentiment holds up here as well as it does, with this nonstop beating Israel takes in the press, which is effectively Saudi-occupied territory. The effect of this is not so much to turn people against Israel, but to leave them confused. That is good enough as far as the bad guys are concerned; confused people are apathetic people, in real political terms.

    The danger here is what I call the “British model”. I have it on good authority from those who live there now, and those who have lived there – haven’t been there myself – that street-level “native” Brits are generally not anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Yet both major political parties have been co-opted by the bad guys in such a way that the default position is anti-Israel, no matter who is in power. They are trying to accomplish the same thing here: Throw out a lot of noise in the media and academia that neutralizes pro-Israel voices and leaves most confused and inactive, then corrupt the centers of power at the upper echelons of the political establishment, so that another Saudi “colony” is created in terms of policy towards Israel.

    The only things standing in the way of what I describe above, here in the U.S. are: Larger and more vocal Jewish population (stop sneering over there in Israel; we are lions here compared to British Jewry), the Evangelicals (a BIG plus in our favor), and the Tea Party, which is largely pro-Israel by default (i.e., their main program is not to wind up like defeated, decadent Europe; supporting Israel is part of that picture for them; Glenn Beck is very representative of this phenomenon).

    Obama’s piss poor performance overall will help us in the long run, even as we have to live through the results of what he is doing for the time being. His whole program will be discredited; likely along with the rest of his garbage, the anti-Israel b.s. will fall out of favor here as well. A new, dynamic, pro-Israel administration could turn things around in a big way, in a big hurry. Depends on who we get. The bad guys will do their damnedest to stop this; their influence via venues such as the media make them powerful, but they are far from invincible (e.g., fewer and fewer Americans trust the media). With Obama, they’ve shot a large part of their bolt, at least in terms of controlling the Oval Office directly via a stooge like him. Their gambit in this respect is failing, but still has some gas left in it (sixteen months worth to be precise, can do a lot of damage in that time). We play our cards right and we have a bit of luck, the whole thing is liable to backfire in their faces in a most unpleasant manner for them.

    We are holding him at bay for now. Remember, a year ago right now, he stood before the UN and commited to having “wrapped up” this Israeli-Palestinian thing by this moment. We screwed up his timetable big time.

    A complex, volatile situation remains.

  20. While I wish one and all a very happy NEW JEWISH YEAR 5772 I also ponder who is more at risk today. Israel as in Eretz Israel or those that feverishly work to harm it?
    Lest take a good look around.
    Granted that islamic underfed, poorly educated at best, poisoned by Islam hordes foam at the mouth and gnash teeth, and I include here those that egg those cultists of death but they know that that is as much as they can do.
    5772 and we are back in the LAND of ISRAEL prepared for all opportunties and dangers.

  21. Ted, I agree with you usually, but not here dude, I keep tellin ya all along time for Jews to leave US of A, Exit taxes of 95% on marxists wealth means we get to lower our national debt, ayotollah bloomberg luvver of musloids and his type r robbing our country. Time for Jews to go to Israel and put Isaiah into action. The Messiah awaits,

  22. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees (of the Center for Strategic and International Studies) is Sam Nunn, a former Democratic Senator from Georgia and longtime chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. Its board of trustees includes many former senior government officials including Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Cohen, George Argyros and Brent Scowcroft

    — Wikipedia

    Haim Malka’s group is anything but pro-Israel, which you can see by taking one glance at the names of her overlords. When an Israeli like Yamit says Israel should become self-sufficient in defence, he is stating the obvious: That the rulers of America, from either party, are on a course (contrary to the will of their Christian constituents) to throw Israel to the crocodiles. When a Kapo Jew like Malka, speaking for and organization run by a Kapo Jew like Kissinger, says essentially the same thing, it means something quite different: It means that the powers behind the power in the US are about to do exactly what Israelis like Yamit have been saying all along.

  23. The Republican party is not totally in sync with the so called tea party–the Republican party is in large measure part of the problem as they for the most are Marxists–like those in the Democrat party. Barack Obama’s decision to undermine Mubarak, attack Lybia and embrace the Nazi islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood–is in keeping with the administrations desire to increase the political and military strength of the Nazi Islamofascists, i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood in their desire to destroy Israel–Mubarak and Gaddafi stood in their way restraining the Muslim Brotherhood who are against Israel–as such they had to be eliminated. Let’s not forget who it was who convinced Barack Obama to undermine Mubarak and Gaddafi–it was these three antisemitic Marxist whores, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice; of course Barack Obama didn’t need much convincing since he was for the most already in agreement with these three whores.