Does the US-Israel joint missile exercise represent a change in US policy?
Mark Whittington argues that the
upcoming joint exercise between the US and Israel constitutes a change in policy by the Obama administration.
The exercise represents a change in Obama administration strategy, made necessary by the failure of the old one. The Obama administration had made it a point to put distance between it and the government of Israel, going so far as to deliberately slight its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. At the same time it attempted an policy of engagement with America's enemies in the Middle East, particularly Iran. It also supported regime change in Egypt and in Libya, the latter with military force.
The result of this policy has been an emboldened Iran, perhaps made desperate by growing sanctions, and radicalized Arab governments in countries such as Egypt. The Middle East has traditionally been a mess for many centuries. The Obama administration unarguably made things worse.
Belatedly, it looks like the Obama administration is attempting to repair military ties with Israel while stepping up sanctions and perhaps covert operations against Iran. There is even some consideration of intervention in the Syria rebellion in order to hasten regime change, according to Foreign Policy.
Will this change of policy be too late to prevent a new Middle East war? Only time will tell.
If only.... This doesn't represent a strategic change. It represents electoral politics. If October rolls around with Iran touting a nuclear weapon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and possibly Syria as Islamist states, and Israel under attack from Hamas and Hezbullah, the American electorate might realize how badly Obama has screwed up.
Priorities man, priorities.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, US - Israel relationship
How the US should treat Israel
After reviewing some of Israel's contributions to the World economy over the last couple of years, author George Gilder comes up with
this:
U.S. policy is crippled by a preoccupation with the claimed grievances of the Palestinians and their supposed right to a state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza. But the Palestinian land could not have supported one-tenth as many Palestinians as it does today without the heroic works of reclamation and agricultural development by Jewish settlers beginning in the 1880s, when Arabs in Palestine numbered a few hundred thousand.
Actions have consequences. When the Palestinian Liberation Organization launched two murderous Intifadas within a little over a decade, responded to withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza by launching thousands of rockets on Israeli towns, spurned every sacrificial offer of “Land for Peace” from Oslo through Camp David, and reversed the huge economic gains fostered in the Palestinian territories between 1967 and 1990, the die was cast.
It’s time to move on.
For the U.S., moving on means a sober recognition that Israel is not too large but too small. It boasts a booming economy still absorbing overseas investment and a substantial net inflow of immigrants. Yet it is cramped in a space the size of New Jersey, hemmed in by enemies on three sides, with 60,000 Hezbollah and Hamas rockets at the ready, and Iran lurking with nuclear ambitions and genocidal intent over the horizon.
Clearly, Israel needs every acre it now controls. Still, despite its huge technological advances, its survival continues to rely on peremptory policing of the West Bank, on an ever-advancing shield of antimissile technology, and on the unswerving commitment of the U.S.
But this is no one-way street. At a time of acute recession, debt overhang, suicidal energy policy and venture capitalists who hope to sustain the U.S. economy and defense with Facebook pages and Twitter feeds, U.S. defense and prosperity increasingly depend on the ever-growing economic and technological power of Israel.
If we stand together we can deter or defeat any foe. Failure, however, will doom the U.S. and its allies to a long war against ascendant jihadist barbarians, with demographics and nuclear weapons on their side, and no assurance of victory. We need Israel as much as it needs us.
Indeed.
Labels: George Gilder, Israel Test, US - Israel relationship
An assessment of US - Israel relations in 2011 to the theme of Dayeinu
Yoram Ettinger has an assessment of US-Israeli relations to the theme of
Dayeinu.
Passover Hymn, Da'ye'nu: "How many degree of beneficence hath the Almighty conferred upon us?! If He had brought us forth from Egypt, and had not executed judgment upon the Egyptians, it would have sufficed (Da'ye'nu)… If He had inflicted justice upon them…, it would have sufficed (Da'ye'nu')…"
If Israel were merely the most effective battle-tested laboratory available to the USA, the source for over 600 modifications of the F-16, and thousands of cutting-edge modifications in hundreds additional US military systems, enhancing US national security, while providing the US defense industries a unique mega-billion dollars competitive edge in the global market, expanding US employment, research & development and export infrastructures - Da’ye’nu (it would have sufficed to crown Israel as a unique two-way-street ally of the USA);
If Israel were merely the source of breakthrough battle tactics, which were the first to penetrate/jam/destroy the most sophisticated Soviet/Russian surface-to-air missile batteries and radar systems, in addition to transferring to the US the first Soviet MIG-21 and 23 and other Soviet military systems, which tilted global balance of power in favor of the USA, providing the US defense industries with mega-billion dollars bonanza - Da’ye’nu;
If Israel were merely the source of intelligence – shared with the USA - which exceeds the scope of intelligence received by the US from all NATO countries combined (according to Senator Daniel Inouye, former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and current Chairman of the full Appropriations Committee) and is equal to five CIAs (according to retired General George Keegan, former Chief of US Air Force Intelligence) - Da’ye’nu;
If Israel were merely the country which destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 (in defiance of global opposition), thus providing the USA a conventional option in the 1991 Gulf War, sparing the US a potential traumatic nuclear confrontation - Da’ye’nu;
If Israel were merely a source of battle-proven experience and military systems – combating IEDs, car bombs, suicide bombers and generic terrorism – shared with US Special Operations units, which battle Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus minimizing US losses - Da’ye’nu;
Continue reading
here.
Labels: Dayeinu, US - Israel relationship, Yoram Ettinger
Cantor spokesman clarifies remarks on Netanyahu meeting
Since none of the
Leftist bloggers who
attacked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) bothered to call Cantor's office, here are some
clarifications from Brad Dayspring, Cantor's press secretary regarding the readout they've been parsing since last Thursday.
As the author of these two sentences, I feel it is my obligation to set the record straight, starting with the first point: “Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington.”
This sentence was intended to summarize the portion of their conversation about the U.S. election. The checks and balances message was a dominant theme of the 2010 campaign, and certainly played a role in the defeat of many incumbent members. In that context, it would be difficult to imagine a serious conversation about the post-election shift in power without at least mentioning the role of the new Republican majority in the 112th Congress.
The separation of powers was designed by the Founders to prevent a majority from unbridled rule, prohibiting any branch of the new American government from attaining too much power. In a divided government, policy differences will naturally be more prevalent than during periods of one party rule.
With that in mind, it hardly seems shocking that a senior member of the House would reiterate the constitutional responsibility of checks and balances. Additionally, it is noteworthy that nothing in this sentence relates to, sides with, or advocates for Israel or its prime minister – despite efforts by Think Progress and others to insert that notion for argumentative convenience.
Second: “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”
To be clear, Eric understands this special relationship, and he felt it important to make clear to the prime minister that the new Republican majority does as well.
Do you know who else does? According to this White House Press Office readout, President Barack Obama does: “…The President and the Prime Minister reaffirmed the strong, unbreakable bonds that characterize the special relationship between the United States and Israel.”
In other words, Eric reiterated administration policy, according to its own definition.
The second half of the statement, “and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other,” is something that Eric wanted to stress, particularly in the current global environment.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to agree, if her remarks to AIPAC are any indication.
“Given the shared challenges we face,” Clinton said, “the relationship between the United States and Israel has never been more important. The United States has long recognized that a strong and secure Israel is vital to our own strategic interests. And we know that the forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States of America. And therefore, we firmly believe that when we strengthen Israel’s security, we strengthen America’s security.”
Last, Rozen wrote on Politico, “Kampeas also characterized the one-on-one meeting between the prime minister and the lawmaker as unusual.”
Yet both Kampeas and Rozen failed to mention that on the same day Netanyahu met with Eric, the prime minister held a similar meeting with the New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer.
For some reason, neither found that meeting to be so unusual.
Somehow I doubt we'll be seeing any mea culpas from Kampeas, Rozen, Sullivan, Benen, etc. But this certainly is a different perspective.
Forgive me, but I was actually hoping the Leftists were correct and that Cantor really was telling Bibi, "we've got your back against Obama." My, my, these Lefties really are becoming paranoid, aren't they?
Labels: Eric Cantor, US - Israel relationship
The real Arab lobby: Europe
Former AIPAC director Steve Rosen argues that the real Arab lobby in the United States is not Arab Americans or even the Saudis:
It's the Europeans.
The Europeans are particularly formidable in their influence over U.S. Middle East policy because of four advantages.
First, although there exist subtle differences, many European leaders share a broad set of common beliefs about Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab world, and the Middle East conflict that are considerably closer to the Arab perspective than to Jerusalem's point of view, and closer to the Arab end of the spectrum than the prevailing views of U.S. policymakers.
Second, they—especially representatives of Britain, Germany, and France—have easier and closer access to U.S. officials up to and including the president than do either the Arabs or the Israelis.
Third, the Europeans couch their presentations within a wider framework of shared values and interests and mutual trust with the United States, so the message is taken more seriously than if it came from an unelected leader of an Arab society vastly different from the United States.
Fourth, U.S. officials believe that it is in the national interest to keep the European allies happy, lest they change to an independent European policy toward the Middle East, falling under the sway of such Europeanists as former European Union commissioner for external affairs Christopher Patten. Thus, for example, Patten said in July 2010, "The default European position should not be … if the Americans don't do anything, to wring our hands. We should … be more explicit in setting out Europe's objectives and … try to implement them."
This is kind of long, but
read the whole thing. He tells a fascinating story about how British Prime Minister John Major was the cause of the biggest blowup (at least until last March) in US - Israel relations.
Labels: Arab lobby, European Union, George H. W. Bush, John Major, US - Israel relationship
Mark Whittington argues that the upcoming joint exercise between the US and Israel constitutes a change in policy by the Obama administration. 
