So, Why Not Dump Israel ?

Why all this fuss about Israel? Aren't they nothing but trouble for America?

To hear a lot of what's going around these days, Israel is at the heart of the problems we have with the Muslim world, and things would be just fine if we became more 'balanced'...or translated, became more pro-Arab and curtailed our support for those pushy, stubborn Jews. Besides, aren't they an ungrateful ally? Certainly President Obama, John Kerry and a lot of others in Washington say things like that all the time. Although they dress it up a little, that is essentially what they believe. Israel is a problem, not an asset.

ISIS, terrorism against the west, Iran's belligerent behavior, the problems in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and especially with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are all mostly Israel's fault. And murdering Jews is just a natural reaction to 'occupation', although no one's country is being occupied in any usual sense of the way the word is used. Gaza is an example of how bizarre and distorted the idea of Israel's 'occupation has become.

Israel pulled every Jew living in the area out, with effusive guarantees from the EU ,UN and the Bush Administration that it would never be allowed to become a security problem for Israel. Yet the Jewish State is still regularly referred to as 'the occupying power' by the UN and the so-called International Community.And that 'occupation is based on Israel's blockade of Hamas that even the UN called fully legal, a blockade that was only necessary because of the failure by these other entities to honor those those same security guarantees made to Israel to get them to pull out of Gaza in the first place! You literally can't make this stuff up.

Just as an aside, one reason many Israelis aren't the least bit interested in giving up any more land no matter what the UN or anyone else says is precisely because of what happened with Gaza. Why make themselves even more vulnerable for guarantees that won't be kept and demonization as 'occupiers' even after they've left?

Another homily heard often is that Israel can't survive unless it retreats to what people call the 'pre-1967' borders.' That seems fair, doesn't it?

What isn't said much is that those were never borders at all, but simply cease fire lines from 1948 between countries still then in a state of war. Going back to those ceasefire lines would push Israel into an indefensible enclave,turn half a million its citizens into refugees, divide its capitol and make the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and Hebron off limits forever to Jews. And it would also give up high ground within easy missile and artillery range of its airports and the country's most populated areas to people who make no mistake about being genocidal when it comes to Israel's Jews.

 

That, after all is what President Obama, the UN and the EU are saying with their insistence on a two state solution based on those 1948 ceasefire lines, and it actually appears that the Obama Administration is willing to sign on to or at least abstain from vetoing a new UN resolution sponsored by France to insist on exactly that.

But hey, isn't that Israel's problem, not ours? So what?

Let's take an objective look. What difference does what happens to Israel make to us here in America? Why should we care? Why is what happens to Israel important to the US? If Israel somehow ceased to exist, would it matter to America? I mean, we give them all that aid money. Why not spend it at home? And who knows, maybe if we weren't giving all that aid to Israel, we might not have all those problems with the Muslim world!

There's a very well organized, well funded effort going on now to convince people of exactly that. Could they be right? Let's find out.

And to do that, let's put aside any of those slooshy considerations of fairness, justice, religion or humanitarian principles and go for the cold, hard, self-serving realpolitik mindset to find out if what happens to Israel is important to the US:

Wouldn't America be more secure if we weren't supporting Israel?

Like it or not, Israel occupies some very strategic real estate in the Levant. It is in a position to safeguard NATO's soft underbelly, especially significant since most of the NATO countries lack any significant military component...and also would have a significant political problem convincing their electorates to support any kind of military action anyway, given whom their electorates increasingly are composed of these days.

As tired of the Middle East as many Americans are, this is an increasingly strategic part of the world where whatever allies we might have had or thought we had among the Sunni Arab states are either alienated, ultimately untrustworthy or weak. Israel is none of these things, and unless you're like John Kerry or our president and are convinced that Iran is now going to be just a peace loving pussycat and ISIS isn't really a major problem, the value of having a strong ally in the region with a powerful military and superior HUMINT on the ground is obvious. Here's a few examples of how that's worked in the past and how it continues to work now:

• Israel pushed the Soviets out of the Middle East during the Cold War  and provided America a first hand look at the latest Soviet weapons and technology...all without the cost of a single American soldier. When the then new Soviet Mig 21 was knocking our pilots out of the air in Vietnam, it was Israel who bribed an Iraqi pilot to bring one to Israel, which they turned over to the United States so we could figure out its weak points and stop the carnage.

• Israel saved literally thousands of American lives by taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak. Yes, they did it for their own reasons, but if not for that, the casualty lists from the first Gulf War ten years later would have been very different if it could have even been fought at all. And just imagine what would be going on now in Syria if Israel hadn't knocked out the nuclear facility Basher Assad got from North Korea back in 2007 over the Bush Administration's objections... and ISIS or some other bad actor got it's hands on it?

• Israel has a first class intelligence service in the Mossad and its native Arabic and Farsi speakers contribute immeasurably to US intel by adding to its access in the region and by adding the dimension of `HUMINT'-human intelligence - on the ground. General George Keagan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, once stated in Congress that "Israel is worth five CIAs," based on the value of intelligence passed to America. Essentially, Israel is a security bulwark and a vital window on America's enemies in the region...unless, of course you agree with President Obama that everything's just wonderful when it comes to countries like Iran and we can rely on Iran's self inspections when it comes to their nuclear weapons program.

• Israel is one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world. It has been and continues to be a major partner of the US in weapons technology in numerous joint projects and the US has access to the fruits of some of the most sophisticated technological installations in the world at Tel-Aviv University and the Technion, Israel's MIT. A lot of those projects have saved US lives and enhanced our own military. Numerous Israeli innovations are now commonly used by our troops on the ground. For example, there's the lightweight helmet Israel developed that's more bullet resistant than the one we had. Our troops use it. There's advanced anti anti tank systems, the Green Pine radar, the AGM-142 Have Nap (AKA the Popeye Missile), the Marine Corps Laser Range Finder made by Israel's Elbeit Systems, the SIMON breach rifle grenade...again, it's a pretty long list.

• Israel also hosts America's Strategic Arms Depot free of charge on its territory, so that American troops can deploy in the region quickly and have their armor, supplies, arms and equipment ready and waiting for them when they get there if we have to deploy our troops there in a hurry. The US arranged that after the First Gulf War, when we had to hire merchant ships to get the stuff over there because we lacked merchant marine capacity. It amounts to a base on foreign territory that America gets for free, and without having to deploy any US troops. Going price for that? Based on what other bases cost us, around $4-5 billion per year....a lot more if you include the cost of stationing personnel there. And that's assuming we could find another reliable country in the region we could trust to let us do it. For instance, we have bases in Bahrain, KSA and Turkey, but those countries have all imposed restrictions on our deploying US forces there or using them for military operations at one time or another.
  
  And Israel's one of the few allies we have who routinely makes its facilities available to US forces when needed, its ports, airfields and air space. That also comes in quite handy.
  

So all things considered, I'd have to say it looks like American security is actually enhanced because of our relationship with Israel, not the other way around.


But what about all that money we give Israel?

'Give' Israel? By law, almost all of that $3.5 billion Israel receives has to be spent here in America, a restriction not many US aid recipients, Pakistan ($5-7 billion) and Egypt ($1.5 billion) for example are subject to. Israel means jobs and prosperity for America's defense industry.

Again, you also have to consider the value of the Strategic Arms depot, free use of Israel's facilities,and HUMINT and the value of all those joint weapons projects. That all adds up to a lot more money than Israel gets in aid from the US.

And here's another aspect to be considered. This partnership allows the US to pressure Israel's defense companies to withdraw from lucrative contracts around the world. One recent example is the $13 billion Polish missile defense contract. The Poles really liked David's Sling, developed by Israel's Rafael and they also had their own issues with Obama, so they were ready to accept Rafael's bid and buy. The US pressured Rafael to withdraw its bid so Raytheon could get the contract. That's by no means the only time this has happened.

All this adds up to Israel being one of America's few foreign policy bargains. The aid is less than one tenth of one percent of the Federal budget and the US receives far more in return than it shells out.

OK, so Israel's a bargain. But maybe we should just get out of the Middle East altogether. We'd have much better relations with the Muslim world if we did that and didn't support Israel, wouldn't we? And wouldn't that stop terrorism against the U.S.?

Is that really how it would work? President Obama and two successive Secretaries of States, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have operated on that principle for the last 7 years. President Obama famously said he wanted to create 'distance' between America and Israel, and no objective observer can doubt that he's succeeded to a large degree. The EU has followed the same policy to an even greater extent for some time. How has that worked out? Is the EU experiencing peace, tolerance and kumbaya from their own Muslim populations let alone groups like ISIS? Are we?

If Israel were to magically disappear tomorrow, would ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Jaish Islami, al-Nusra and all the rest go out of business?

Even after getting $150 billion in cash, the sanctions watered down and eventually ended and getting literally everything they wanted at the negotiating table on their illegal nuclear program, is Iran less aggressive or more aggressive towards the U.S.? Did President Obama's decision to create that distance between America and Israel, ignore the Green Revolution and the Iranian government's hideous crackdown on dissidents seeking democracy lead to a less belligerent Iran? Have the Iranians even stopped the massive public chants of 'death to America' or referring to America as the Great Satan?

The answers are obvious. Iran is far more aggressive, hostile and belligerent towards America than they've ever been, even to the point of refusing to cooperate with America against a common enemy in ISIS. There's no reason at all to think this behavior on Iran's part would change one iota if America completely cut off all ties with Israel. Actually, with Israel weakened or even removed as a check to Iran's ambitions, Iran's hostility and warlike behavior would probably even increase. In any event, if things got that hot the Israelis might very well resort to some drastic means to win out...and we might not like the results.

Another thing about cutting all ties with Israel has to do with how it would affect the geo-political balance. Most Israelis understand that the chief benefit of their relationship with the U.S. is not financial but American back up strategically and in international forums like the UN. If that ends, as President Obama and Secretary Kerry have hinted, how would that affect America?

Israel has very good strategic and trade ties with China, and fairly decent strategic relations with Russia. Wouldn't  America cutting strategic ties be an incentive to Israel to form stronger ones with them? How would that affect the U.S.? And how would the spectacle of America dumping a long time ally affect how other U.S. allies looked at their own relationships with America?

Another allegation that's fairly common these days in DC is that al-Qaeda and ISIS use Israel as a recruiting tool. To a certain extent that's true to a degree now, but it's also true that neither group used 'Palestine' as a marketing tool until after it became a common talking point in certain circles emanating out of the White House and in media outlets like the NY Times. Osama bin-laden and al-Qaeda didn't even mention 'Palestine' until years after 9/11 and ISIS was far more interested in Basher Assad and the corrupt, oppressive Shi'ite dictatorship we put in power in Iraq. For that matter, ISIS wasn't even particularly hostile to the US until President Obama started bombing them.

Any casual examination of history shows the fallacy of abandoning a loyal, powerful ally to appease an enemy, especially during wartime. Nor would it meaningfully improve relations between the US and the Arab world. The proof of that is to examine the US relationship with the Arab World before we became one of Israel's main allies in 1970, after the `67 Six-Day War. President Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles pursued a pro-Arab, cool to Israel policy as part of their Cold War strategy to keep the Soviets out of the Arab world. As even Eisenhower admitted, it failed utterly.

Getting rid of what the Muslim world refers to as the Little Satan would just weaken the Big Satan, America and deprive us of one of our strongest and most valuable allies. And a victory over the hated Jews would only embolden America's enemies.

Take Israel out of the equation and America would manage. So undoubtedly would Israel without America as an ally. But nothing would change except we would have weakened ourselves to the delight of our enemies.

-Selah-

J Street Fails In Attempt To to Prevent Anti-BDS Legislation

 


In late April, the Senate Finance Committee adopted new amendments to the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which would require US trade negotiators to make rejection of the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanction) Movement a requirement in any Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations with the European Union, which are now ongoing.

The bill requires signers of the TTIP “to discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel and seek the elimination of politically motivated non-tariff barriers on Israeli goods, services, or other commerce imposed on the State of Israel.”

This was aimed not only at EU threats of sanctions against Israel but at EU financial support of anti-Israel BDS groups.

As you might expect, the usual suspects among Jewish anti-semites er, 'anti-Zionists' went into full tantrum mode over this one, lobbying feverishly against it.

The rabidly pro-BDS, anti-Israel Jewish Voice for Peace has been one of the leading voices opposing the legislation, along with Americans For Peace Now,and of course, "pro-Israel, pro-peace" J-Street.

They were especially enraged that the wording of the bill - which refers to all "Israeli-controlled territories" - would also make it illegal to boycott Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.


But despite the pressure from these far-left anti-Israel groups the amendments have near unanimous, bipartisan support:

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) strongly praises Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rob Portman (R-OH) for sponsoring the bipartisan United States-Israel Trade Enhancement Act of 2015 (S.619) and Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Juan Vargas (D-Cal) for sponsoring the United States-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act of 2015 (HR.825). In addition, ZOA strongly praises HR.825’s thirty-seven co-sponsors listed below. ZOA also praises Senators Cardin and Portman for annexing this anti-boycott legislation as an amendment to a bill currently in the Senate Finance Committee. [...]

The praiseworthy bipartisan co-sponsors of HR.825 (in addition to sponsors Congressmen Roskam and Vargas) include:

Steve Stivers (R-OH), Lee Zeldin (R-NY), Paul Cook (R-Cal), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Randy Weber, Sr. (R-TX), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Brian Babin (R-TX), Patrick Murphy (D-Fla), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), Trent Frants (R-AZ), Austin Scott (R-GA), Stevan Pearce (R-NM), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Martha McSally (R-AZ), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Chris Collins (R-NY), David McKinley (R-WV), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), Peter King (R-NY), Ron DeSantis (R-Fla), Luke Messer (R-IN), Tom Emmer (R-MN), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Bradley Byrne (R-AL), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla), Earl “Buddy” Carter (R-GA), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Susan Brooks (R-IN), Candice Miller (R-MI) and Daniel Webster (R-Fla).

And those are just the co-sponsors.

Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL), who co-sponsored the legislation, told The Washington Free Beacon that the whole issue "is a non-story: a bunch of anti-Israel groups criticizing a pro-Israel amendment."

"While a broad bipartisan, bicameral group of Members of Congress are focused on strengthening the mutually beneficial US-Israel economic relationship, this small handful of outside organizations are more interested in defending destructive efforts to delegitimize Israel," he said.

He's got something there. Sanctions are essentially a trade A-bomb, and once the EU uses it, there's zero incentive for Israel to negotiate anything. Unlike Russia and Iran, Israel has more than one product the world wants, and lots of buyers, so even some EU countries will wink at any sanctions, especially with some convenient re-labeling and resales involved. That's exactly how the EU avoided the Arab boycott against Israel in the 1960's and the 1970's.

Not only that, but these days Israel has lucrative and established trade relations with China, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Burma, India, Russia and many other non-EU countries..not to mention Canada and Australia.

President Obama might of course veto this, but doing so would pretty much signal exactly how much he really despises Israel to even the most clueless, not to mention that this legislation merely reiterates existing U.S. law. Even his fellow Dems might participate in a veto overide to preserve their own political hides. And I have a feeling he too realizes that vetoing this would pretty much end what little leverage he has left to get the Israelis to negotiate anything vis a vis 'Palestine'. He has other things more important to deal with, and other plans for Israel, as I'll reveal shortly.

Israel And Russia At The Brink Over Arms Shipments To Syria, Hezbollah

 

A meeting between Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu ended  in a deadlock earlier this week when Netanyahu's attempt to convince Putin not to send advanced Russian arms to Syria and Hezbollah fell on deaf ears.

In particular, the Israelis are concerned about Russia supplying Hezbollah and Syria with S-300 surface-to-air missile defense systems and Yakhont anti-ship missiles.

Putin was reportedly angry about the USS Kearsarge docking at the Israeli port of Eilat with 1,800 marines and a consignment of 20 V-22 Osprey helicopters, which Secretary of State Hagel had promised to supply Israel with during his last trip to Israel. From Putin's viewpoint, he sees it as duplicity for the Obama Administration to talk about Russia and the US working on a diplomatic solution to the Syrian War on the one hand while the US is bringing troops into the region and deploying them. The Marines are likely bound for the Jordanian/Syrian border.

Needless to say, Putin is not at all concerned about how the presence of Russian military in Syria looks to anyone else. He's committed to preserving Assad and Syria as a Russian client.According to US sources quoted in the Wall Street Journal today, Putin warned Israel not to interfere with the Russian arms shipments.

Actually, according to my sources, Putin even went further, warning the Israelis that any attempt to destroy the shipments could lead to a war in which Russia might conceivably get involved, especially if its nationals were killed. Netanyahu countered by telling Putin that Israel would continue to hit advanced weapons shipments bound for Syria or Hezbollah, and that if President Bashar Assad attacked Israel the Israelis would destroy Assad's military capabilities.

The Russians have doubled down in favor of Assad by vastly increasing their naval faces in the region.Russia currently has 11 ships in the eastern Mediterranean, organized into three taskforces, including destroyers, frigates, support vessels and intelligence-collecting ships. The group includes the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev, two amphibious warfare ships called Peresvet and Admiral Nevelskoi, a tanker and a tugboat.Another three-ship group of amphibious attack vessels is headed to the region.

The ships come from Russia's Pacific Fleet, the first time Russian warships from that fleet have ever appeared in the Mediterranean. Our Egyptian 'friends' allowed them to use the Suez Canal.

US CIA head John Brennan is in Israel today and Israel's Channel 10 is reporting that he's been in serious meetings with Israeli defense Minister Moishe 'Boogie' Y'aalon  and PM Netanyahu. The Israelis  are not going to allow advanced weapons to get into the hands of Syria or Hezbollah even if they have to kill a few Russian technicians and trainers to do it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

In fact, during the '67 and especially during the '73 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis had no problems handling Soviet pilots flying the most advanced 'Egyptian and Syrian' Migs or dealing with Soviet military 'advisers' on the ground. In fact, a number of them were captured alive by the Israelis and exchanged later after a through debriefing by both the Shin Bet and our CIA.

What I'm reasonably certain is that Brennan is counseling the Israelis to hold off on any strikes to allow our clueless Secretary of State John Kerry to try and work out something with Putin.

The Israelis may wait for a short  time, but in the end, they will act, just as they ended up acting to put the cork in the bottle on Syria's nuclear reactor back in 2007, in spite of determined obstruction by Condi Rice and Robert Gates. If Israel had listened to them, Basher Assad would probably have a couple of nuclear warheads by now.

On the other hand, the Russians have backed down before when it comes to  shipments of S-300's and similar weaponry before.

Stay tuned..

Obama Administration To Sell 125 Abrams Battle Tanks To Egypt

The Obama Administration has determined that it's a great idea to sell Egypt 125 M1A1 Abrams battle tanks. Yes, we're selling offensive weaponry to a country where the situation could be described as 'fluid', no one really knows who will end up being in charge from week to week, and the popular consensus is for abrogating Egypt's peace treaty with Israel.

The deal is part of a $1.3 billion package that includes associated weapons, equipment, parts, training and logistical support. Since Egypt is essentially bankrupt, that cost is going to be borne by the American taxpayer.And the deal calls for a portion of the materials to be be produced in Egypt, so we're not even getting the benefit of putting a few Americans to work.

Egypt is a country unable to feed it's eighty million population, yet the US is 'selling' offensive weaponry like the Abrams tanks, 24 F-16 fighter jets, Hellfire missiles, Harpoon antiship missiles, TOW anti-tank missiles, Chinook transport helicopters and Apache attack helicopters.

One wonders who these armaments are designed to 'defend' against, since Egypt has no hostile states on its borders. Unless of course, come the September elections, a new president backed by a Muslim Brotherhood controlled parliament takes over and declares Israel a hostile state. In that case, this weaponry is going to be turned against Israel, supposedly a US ally!

This genuinely stupid deal still needs to be approved by Congress. Get busy and call, e-mail and fax your representatives. Aside from the fact that we shouldn't be subsidizing possible Egyptian aggression against Israel, we can't afford it.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Truth Or Dare: How Palestinian Groupies Twist 'The Narrative'

As I mentioned earlier, there's a letter that was sent to the White House imploring President Obama to have the US vote in favor of sandbagging Israel at the UN. It came signed by the usual Arab Lobby fixtures, foreign policy establishment types,former diplomats (many of them currently on the Arab payroll), Leftist Academics and Israel bashers like Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart. Oh, a couple of Rabbis for Obama as cover. Gotta have those...acts as an insurance policy certain nasty accusations.

The letter itself is profoundly ridiculous and shows you exactly how such people are willing to soil them selves in public for the sake of their employers and their own bigotry.

I'll reproduce this letter in full and show you why it's such utter garbage and advocates a position detrimental to the US and it's security:


Washington, DC -- 18 January 2011

Dear Mr. President,
In light of the impasse reached in efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) moves to consider a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, we are writing to urge you to instruct our Ambassador to the United Nations to vote yes on this initiative.

The time has come for a clear signal from the United States to the parties and to the broader international community that the United States can and will approach the conflict with the objectivity, consistency and respect for international law required if it is to play a constructive role in the conflict's resolution.

While a UNSC resolution will not resolve the issue of settlements or prevent further Israeli construction activity in the Occupied Territory, it is an appropriate venue for addressing these issues and for putting all sides on notice that the continued flouting of international legality will not be treated with impunity. Nor would such a resolution be incompatible with or challenge the need for future negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues, and it would in no way deviate from our strong commitment to Israel's security.

If the proposed resolution is consistent with existing and established US policies, then deploying a veto would severely undermine US credibility and interests, placing us firmly outside of the international consensus, and further diminishing our ability to mediate this conflict.

If the U.S. believes that the text of the resolution is imperfect, there is always the opportunity to set forth additional U.S. views on settlements and related issues in an accompanying statement. The alternative to a Resolution - a consensus statement by the President of the UNSC - would have no stature under international law, hence this option should be avoided.

As you made clear, Mr. President, in your landmark Cairo speech of June 2009, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

There are today over half a million Israelis living beyond the 1967 line - greatly complicating the realization of a two-state solution. That number has grown dramatically in the years since the peace process was launched: in 1993 there were 111,000 settlers in the West Bank alone; in 2010 that number surpassed 300,000.

The settlements are clearly illegal according to article 49 of the Fourth Geneva convention - a status recognized in an opinion issued by the State Department's legal adviser on April 28, 1978, a position which has never since been revised.

(This is rich. Article 49 refers to 'the Occupying Power'. There was and never has been a country called ' Palestine' that owned the area in question and in fact the area in question was illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948, the Jewish inhabitants ethnically cleansed and no member states of the UN except for the UK and Pakistan recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the area. A state of war did in fact exist continuously from 1948 -1967 that time, Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, was subsequently defeated and has since given up all claim to the areas of Judea and Samaria ( AKA the West Bank) including Jerusalem. Hence there is no occupying power since the area was disputed and never officially a part of any country.

Moreover, the article states that "the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." If Israel was in fact the Occupying Power, it thus had every right to transfer large numbers of the population to Jordan after Arafat's War against Israel's civilians.)


That official US legal opinion describes the settlements as being "inconsistent with international law". US policy across nine administrations has been to oppose the settlements, with the focus for the last two decades being on the incompatibility of settlement construction with efforts to advance peace. The Quartet Roadmap, for instance, issued during the Bush presidency in 2003, called on Israel to "freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth."

( And President Bush provided assurances to Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister modifying this position as a condition of Israel signing on to the Road Map. Moreover, construction by Israel or the 'Palestinians' was never an issue in any peace negotiations until President Obama made it one and pushed the 'Palestinians' up a tree they now can't climb down from.)

Indeed, the US has upheld these principles, including their application to East Jerusalem, by allowing the passage of previous relevant UNSC resolutions, including: UNSCRs 446 and 465, determining that the settlements have "no legal validity"; UNSCRs 465 and 476, affirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva convention to the Occupied Territory; UNSCRs 1397 and1850 stressing the urgency of achieving a comprehensive peace and calling for a two state solution; and UNSCR 1515, endorsing the Quartet Roadmap.

(Interesting. 446,465 and 476, 1397. 1850 and 1815 are not Chapter VII binding resolutions and thus have no force under International Law. This is appropriate, since they ignore the fact that Jews were forcibly deprived of their legally purchased property not only in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem but all over the Arab world in th eperiod after 1948.

Additionally, if the fourth Geneva Convention was not invoked against Jordan in that country's illegal occupation and forcible removal of inhabitants, why should it be invoked against Israel, with far less cause? Again, one must also point out that the UN is now dominated by the 52 member Organization of Islamic Conference and other Muslim countries, the UN has a an historic bias against Israel and Zionism. Does anyone doubt that the UN Security Council could likely pass a Resolution that Jews have horns on their heads if it were not for the US veto?)

At this critical juncture, how the US chooses to cast its vote on a settlements resolution will have a defining effect on our standing as a broker in Middle East peace. But the impact of this vote will be felt well beyond the arena of Israeli-Palestinian deal-making - our seriousness as a guarantor of international law and international legitimacy is at stake.

America's credibility in a crucial region of the world is on the line - a region in which hundreds of thousands of our troops are deployed and where we face the greatest threats and challenges to our security. This vote is an American national security interest vote par excellence. We urge you to do the right thing.

(In fact, making such a decision would severely impact our credibility. Endorsing or abstaining from a UN Resolution dubbing Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem would violate both the Oslo Accords and the Road Map, both of which the US is a signatory to. The canard that adhering to our agreements in this regard would endanger US security is a narrative that has been actively pushed by certain vested interests for some time now,but the fact remains that if Israel were to magically disappear tomorrow, nothing would change. Iran would still be seeking nuclear weapons, fomenting terrorism and aiding and abetting our enemies. Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Abu Sayef, Jama'al Islamiah, the Taliban, Lashkar e Taiba and other bad actors inthis part of th e world would still exist and still be a threat to US security.

What would change is that America would have lost a crucial ally.)

Respectfully yours,
Amjad Atallah, Co-Director, Middle East Task Force, New America Foundation
Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University
Rabbi Leonard I. Beerman, Leo Baeck Temple, Los Angeles
Peter Beinart, Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science, the City University of New York; Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
Landrum Bolling, Senior Advisor, Mercy Corps
Hon. Everett Ellis Briggs, former US Ambassador, Portugal, Honduras, Panama; former special advisor to President George H.W. Bush, National Security Council; former President, Americas Society and Council of the Americas
Hon. Frank Carlucci, former US Secretary of Defense
Hon. Wendy Chamberlin, President, Middle East Institute; former US Ambassador, Pakistan
Steven Clemons, Founder and Senior Fellow, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation; publisher, The Washington Note
Hon. Walter L. Cutler, former US Ambassador, Saudi Arabia
Hon. John Gunther Dean, former US Ambassador, Cambodia, Lebanon, Thailand, India
Michael C. Desch, Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame; Contributing Editor, The American Conservative
Hon. James Dobbins, former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Hon. Joseph Duffey, former Director, US Information Agency
Hon. Wes Egan, former US Ambassador, Jordan
Hon. Nancy H. Ely-Raphel, former US Ambassador, Slovenia; former Counselor on International Law, Department of State
Dr. John L. Esposito, Professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Rabbi Tirzah Firestone, Board of Directors, Rabbis for Human Rights - North America
Hon. Chas W. Freeman, Jr, former US Ambassador, Saudi Arabia; former President, Middle East Policy Council
Hon. Edward W. Gnehm, Jr., Professor of Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, George Washington University; former US Ambassador, Jordan, Kuwait
Hon. William C. Harrop, former US Ambassador, Israel, Guinea, Kenya, Seychelles, Zaire
Hon. Carla Hills, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and former US Trade Representative
Hon. Roderick M. Hills, former Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Hon. H. Allen Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of State, European Affairs; former Assistant Secretary, Political-Military Affairs; former US Ambassador, Portugal
Hon. Arthur Hughes, former Deputy Chief of Mission, Israel; former Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Defense; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern Affairs
Robert Jervis, Professor of International Affairs, Columbia University; former President, American Political Science Association
Christian A. Johnson, Professor, Hamilton College
Michael Kahn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz
Hani Masri, Publisher, The Palestine Note
Hon. David Mack, Vice President, Middle East Institute; former US Ambassador, UAE; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern Affairs
Hon. Richard Murphy, former Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs; former US Ambassador, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Mauritania
William Nitze, former Assistant Administrator for International Activities, Environmental Protection Agency; Trustee, the Aspen Institute
Hon. Robert Pastor, former Senior Director, National Security Council; Professor of International Relations, American University
Hon. Thomas Pickering, former Undersecretary of State, Political Affairs; former US Ambassador, Russia, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, Jordan, United Nations
Paul Pillar, former National Intelligence Officer, Near Eastern Affairs; Director of Graduate Studies, Security Studies program, Georgetown University
Hon. Anthony Quainton, former US Ambassador to Kuwait and Peru; former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security; former Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, State Department
William B. Quandt, Professor, Middle East history, University of Virginia; former National Security Council Middle East Assistant, President Carter
Hon. Roscoe Suddarth, former US Ambassador, Jordan; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
Andrew Sullivan, Senior Editor, The Atlantic; Editor and Publisher, The Daily Dish
Hon. Nicholas Veliotes, former Assistant Secretary of State, Near East and South Asian affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt and Jordan; former Deputy Chief of Mission to Israel
Hon. Edward S. Walker, Jr., former US Ambassador, Israel, Egypt, UAE; former Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern Affairs
Hon. Allen Wendt, former US Ambassador, Slovenia; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, International Energy and Resources Policy
Hon. Philip Wilcox, President, Foundation for Middle East Peace; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Middle Eastern Affairs; former Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, State Department
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, ret), former Chief of Staff, Department of State; Visiting Professor, College of William & Mary
James Zogby, President, Arab American Institute

I'll let you do your own searches on some of these people and find out where their extremely vested interests lie..although some of them are simply down for the anti-Israel agenda.

What's ironic is that almost all of them would solemnly tell you about the all powerful 'Jewish Lobby' at the drop of a kefiyah.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Same Old Script Between Obama And Israel

Much is being made of Israeli PM Netanyahu's refusal to back down in the face of Obama's slam at Israel in front of a sympathetic Muslim crowd in Jakarta for building 1,300 badly needed homes in Jerusalem.

The Leftish Jewish mag Tablet attempts to analyze this by going to yet another tired ex-Clintonista who was involved in the Oslo fiasco, Aaron David Miller.

The latest to-do, Aaron David Miller told me this morning, “reflects a much-diminished administration that got off on the wrong foot from the beginning.” Prior history as well as the prospects of continued Israeli-Palestinian negotiations give Netanyahu greater leverage, according to the former negotiator. The prime minister “knows that the administration believes the only way this Israeli-Palestinian problem is going to be resolved is negotiations, and so he’s convinced himself that they need him more than he needs them,” Miller said. “I don’t think he’s looking for a confrontation, but he’s willing to stand his ground.” Especially, Miller added, since we are talking about Jerusalem here: “Building in Jerusalem is as natural as breathing.”

To be fair to Obama: The timing of the announcement again seemed calculated to provoke and to assert Netanyahu’s (new?) upper hand; East Jerusalem lies on the far side of the 1967 Green Line; and Israel also just announced the construction of more than 1000 homes in Ariel, an unequivocal West Bank settlement.

Just a little FYI...both the ‘unequivocal settlement’ Ariel and Har Homa, the neighborhood of East Jerusalem where the badly needed housing will be built are on land Jews legally purchased and have owned for decades, not that it matters.The facts are really quite simple; this Jewish land was illegally seized by Jordan in 1948, the Jewish inhabitants ethnically cleansed and the stolen land held for 19 years until Israel recovered it after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967.Now the rightful owners have it back again.

I can't imagine where our president or anyone else get off telling Jews and no one else where they may build homes on land they own. He's never had a word to say about how the 'Palestinians' are continuing to build erratically all over Judea and Samaria and in East Jerusalem with no regard for zoning laws or planning considerations. In fact, the EU and USAid are actually bankrolling many of PA's projects, including the new city of Rawabi, which is deliberately being built in a primarily Jewish area and will actually encroach on the Israeli town of Ateret. Yet no one, especially Obama or our State Department has ever referred to Palestinian building as 'unhelpful'.

Apparently the Obama Administration's 'displeasure' refers to Jews and Jews only.

It is also significant that Obama made these remarks in front of a Muslim crowd in Indonesia, a country Israelis are not even permitted to enter.

Segregation and apartheid, anyone?

I actually don't expect a reprise of last March, although it wouldn't surprise me. Barack Hussein Obama, fresh from yet another Muslim Apology tour is going to have his hands full in DC with the economic turmoil he precipitated and new Republican Congress, and he's not going to be able to road trip forever.

The ‘Palestinians’ had ten months to come to the table and deliberately delayed things for nine and a half months with the intent of deliberately provoking this Kabuki ‘crisis’ figuring they had an anti-Israel president in the White House.

Like Obama, they’ve overplayed their hand.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

A Partisan Divide On Israel?

One of my correspondents has called my attention to a piece by pollster John Zogby, in which Zogby postulates a partisan divide on support for Israel.

Zogby's brother James is a prominent anti-Israel activist and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute, and John Zogby leaves us in no doubt where his sympathies lie in the matter..although I give him credit for disclosing it in his piece.

Briefly put, he polls Democrats as growing less and less favorable to Israel and to lean more towards President Obama's hard line towards the Jewish State, while Republicans tend to be almost overwhelmingly favorable to Israel and dislike President Obama's treatment of our ally.

In Zogby's words, "U.S. Jews, a large majority of whom remain liberal to moderate Democrats, have the wrenching choice of staying loyal to a Democratic Party that increasingly questions Israeli policies."

He also makes the point that in his opinion, demography is on the side of the Democrats, who appeal to growing segments of the electorate like young, African-Americans and Hispanics...groups he refers to as most likely to question the U.S. relationship with Israel.

So is Zogby right? Yes and no.

First of all, it's important to realize that John Zogby's record as a pollster and prognosticator is,to be polite, execrable. He's actually quotes a J-Street poll in his piece as authoritative research! I'm amazed people still give him any credence whatsoever, but at least he's honest to the point of admitting which side of the fence his posterior is sitting on.

Lumping blacks and Hispanics together as a group as Zogby does is also stoo-pid, especially as the two groups in general tend to be somewhat antagonistic to each other. Do a little research of your own on this, especially in areas like South Los Angeles, Compton, Inglewood and other areas where Hispanic demographics are overtaking once black neighborhoods and you'll see what I'm talking about.

As far as blacks go, it's an unpleasant thing to look at but there will always be a significant percentage of black anti-Semitism, especially, oddly enough, in the university educated classes. There are several reason for this, but I think the basic one has to do with envy, the appeal of Left leaning politics, the so-called black liberation theology (and in some cases, Islam), and black resentment over the prominent role played by American Jews in forming, financing and promulgating the civil rights movement.

It's a old joke that no good deed goes unpunished, but there is nothing that garners resentment in some people quite like the feeling that your accomplishments and ambitions were only realized with the help of someone else.

What Hispanic anti-Semitism there is primarily comes from the association with certain elements within the Catholic church, and is not nearly so pervasive except among those Latinos that already lean to the far Left.

He also makes the charming assumption that as Hispanics - a very diverse group whom he again lumps together - assimilate more into the American mainstream, have jobs, investments and businesses and observe what the Democrat's policies are doing to taxes, crime, consumer prices and their kid's educations that they will be stupid enough to continue to pull the lever for the Donkeys. Some obviously will, but many won't. And only as small percentage are likely to be making that decision based on something like Israel.

However, while Zogby's numbers and conclusions are always questionable, let's be quite honest. Jew hatred and Israel bashing has had a mainstream home in the Democrat party since the days of Jimmy Carter and George McGovern, the only two Democratic presidential candidates my reliably FDR worshiping Democrats-for-life parents refused to vote for...they simply didn't cast a vote for president in those elections.

As the party has migrated left, the Israel bashing and Jew hatred has increased, to the point where Barack Hussein Obama is simply a culmination of a long standing trend, even though there are still many Democrats in the rank and file who don't share these views but continue to finesse the obvious when it comes to the party's leadership.We are, after all, talking about a party largely owned these days by George Soros and his minions.

America's Jews will simply have to make a choice what they care about more, Israel and their own self-respect or the Democrat's Leftist agenda. Or to put it another way...would they rather be despised by the Left for being Jews and 'Zionists' or despise themselves for refusing to hold the political party the majority of Jews have their allegiance to to account for not supporting an issue that most American Jews still claim to care passionately about, America's alliance with Israel?

Time will tell.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Would the U.S. Shoot Down an Israeli Jet? Adm. Mullen Won't Say

An interesting question was asked of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen by a young airman..twice:

In a town hall on the campus of the University of West Virginia, a young airman asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen to respond to a “rumor.” If Israel decided to attack Iran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through Iraqi airspace to reach their targets. That airspace is considered a “no-fly” zone by the American military. So might U.S. troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airmen asked the chairman, if they breached that airspace?

Mullen tried to sidestep the question. “We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”

The airmen followed-up: “Would an airmen like me ever be ordered to fire on an Israeli – aircraft or personnel?”

Mullen’s second answer was much the same as his first. “Again, I wouldn’t move out into the future very far from here. They’re an extraordinarily close ally, have been for a long time, and will be in the future,” the admiral said.

I know one airman that's going to get reamed for asking a question of the JCS chief like that in a public forum! Nevertheless, Mullen gave the best answer possible without exceeding his brief. Unless Obama has formulated an official policy one way or another, Mullen can't commit or limit the military one way or the other.

It's also worth remembering that according to the Status of Forces agreement we have with Iraq, we are required to help defend them.

But that aside, a few points.

First of all, it's much more likely according to my sources that the IAF would fly to targets in Iran via Saudi Arabia, mimicking the signals put out bu commercial airliners with the Saudis turning a blind eye as Iran gets hammered.

And if they did fly via Iraq? Given the IAF's stealth capabilities we'd likely just ‘miss’ them on their flight through and I can't see even Obama risking the political fallout from giving the order to fire on Israeli planes....certainly if would have to come from him.

It's also worth remembering that an order to fire on Israeli planes would be a tough one for our military in Iraq to swallow. A lot of US troops owe their lives to the training they've received from the IDF on how to fight and function in Arab cities, and they've likewise seen the casualties from Iranian rockets and IED's smuggled into Iraq for years. My guess is that even if Obama gave such an order, the attempt to carry it out might be less than thorough.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Will America Lose Its Soul If It Abandons Israel?

Dennis Prager asks the question:

Most observers, right or left, pro-Israel or anti-Israel, would agree that Israeli-American relations are the worst they have been in memory. Among the many indications is that only 9 percent of Jewish Israelis think Pres. Barack Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, according to a Smith Research poll taken during the last week of March on behalf of the Jerusalem Post. Given how much Israelis love and admire (and emigrate to) America, this level of mistrust is remarkable.

Commentators on the left blame Israel, of course. For them, this is a no-brainer; blaming Israel is as natural as breathing. Furthermore, Israel is headed by a conservative prime minister and America is led by the most left-wing president in its history.

Meanwhile, commentators on the right are virtually unanimous in supporting Israel. This is not simply an anti-Obama, pro-Netanyahu reflex, however. There are many reasons for it.

Prager lists a few reasons, such as our close strategic alliance and one, Israel supporting us in the UN that I think means absolutely nothing to a nation with a Security Council veto. But then he gets to the heart of things:

There is a fifth reason tens of millions of Americans, including many conservative commentators, support Israel and worry about America as American support for Israel wanes. To the Left in America and around the world, this reason is dangerous nonsense. But for a vast number of America’s Christians, for many Jews, and even many non-religious conservatives, it is deeper than any military or political reason. The reason is based on a verse in Genesis in which God, referring to the Jewish people, says to Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.”

One need not be a Jew or Christian or even believe in God to appreciate that this verse is as accurate a prediction as humanity has ever been given by the ancient world. The Jewish people have suffered longer and more horribly than any other living people. But they are still around. Its historic enemies are all gone. Those that cursed the Jews were indeed cursed.

And those who blessed the Jews were indeed blessed. The most blessed country for over 200 years has been the United States. It has also been the most blessed place Jews have ever lived in. Is this a coincidence? Many of us think not.{..}

The converse is what worries tens of millions of Americans — the day America abandons Israel, America will begin its descent.

Israel shares America’s values such as liberty, an independent judiciary, a free press, freedom of religion, free speech, and women’s equality. The Arab and Muslim worlds have none of these. Those facts — and America’s Judeo-Christian roots — make support of Israel, no matter what the Arab and Muslim “street” feels about America — a moral linchpin of American foreign policy.

This administration’s desire to have America liked in the Arab and Muslim worlds necessarily means altering that linchpin. You cannot protect Israel and strive to be liked in the Arab and Muslim worlds at the same time. And you cannot weaken that protection without weakening America’s moral values, which form the basis of America’s greatness.

Is Dennis Prager correct?

Certainly,unlike Europe America has always blessed its Jews, and that relationship goes back to its earliest days and indeed went both ways. If not for the efforts of Haym Salomon, whose efforts during the American Revolution to raise funds to support Washington and his nascent colonial army extended even to bankrupting his personal fortune, it's unlikely that America would have survived long enough to win its independence. Certainly George Washington as President set the tone for America's relationship with its Jewish citizens in his famous reply to the Jews of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, promising his fellow citizens "of the Stock of Abraham" that the new American republic would give "to bigotry no sanction, to persecution not assistance."

It is also true that every nation that has turned on the Jews, no matter how powerful - Egypt,Babylon, The Seleucids, Rome, Hitler and a host of others - have seen their empires disappear, their power dissipated and destroyed.

But unlike Dennis Prager, I'm not at all worried about America abandoning Israel just because of the ascendancy of a disciple of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his assorted cohorts to the White House.

Aside from the religious reasons Prager mentions ( and I would probably have quoted the appropriate verses in Isaiah rather than Genesis) Americans are pro Israel by better than a two to one ratio because of what Israel is as well as its proven alliance with the US every time we needed them to come through for us.

We see in them a mirror of our earlier selves, a pioneer nation standing on its own two feet with values we recognize that created a homeland for themselves in a wilderness, who made the desert bloom and the barren hillsides flourish. We admire their stubborn willingness to defend what is theirs.

In spite of well funded efforts to demonize Israel, most Americans see them as an outpost of American values, an ally surrounded by our common enemies in th eWar on Jihad.

Barack Hussein Obama can strain those ties, but I doubt he will be able to break them unless the fundamental nature of the American people changes. And I don't see that happening...in spite of the busy efforts of the Left, including many severely confused Jews themselves.

Try as he might, I doubt Obama will convince the American people en masse that the Muslim world and their values are friendly to us and that Israel and the Jews are our enemies. The weight and path of history and of our traditions are simply against it.

Someone once asked me which side I would stand on in the event of a war between America and Israel. I simply told him that for that to happen, either America or Israel would have had to have changed so much that the choice would be self-evident to me.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Guess Who's Helping Fund The US Budget Deficit? Israel!

It's very common for Jew haters like Andrew Sullivan or Michael Scheuer to say that the US 'gets nothing' from its relationship with Israel.

Not only are they absurdly wrong from a strategic and military point of view, but from a simple dollar and cents angle as well.

You see, all threats by Obama and George Mitchell to cut off aid to Israel aside, it's Israel that is helping the US finance its massive deficit,not the other way around:

At the height of the 2002 recession, the Israeli government approached the US Administration and asked that it approve loan guarantees that would enable Jerusalem to raise capital internationally. In exchange for these guarantees, Israel was asked to pay a risk premium in advance

Back then already, Israel did not really need to raise capital abroad. A surplus was emerging in our international balance of payments that only grew in later years. The request from America was made for reasons of political backing and display of trust and support. The guarantees were approved in April 2003 to the tune of $9 billion over three years.

Since October 2004, Israel has made no use of the guarantees, whose validity was extended from time to time. A total of $3.8 billion in unused loan guarantees are just lying there.

A year ago, on the eve of the elections, both Netanyahu and Barak spoke about the possibility of using the guarantees as a lever that would pull the economy out of recession. After the elections they examined the statistics and discovered that Israel has a huge foreign currency surplus relative to our economy’s size. The notion of using the guarantees was abandoned, and rightfully so.

As of September 2009, Israel’s foreign debt totals $28 billion. Meanwhile, the State of Israel’s foreign currency reserves total $60 billion. Most of them are invested in US government bonds. That is, the Israeli government’s foreign debt stands at -$32 billion. Or in other words, at this time we, Israelis, are financing America’s debts – and not the other way around.

Israel is doing the exact same thing for the US economy China is doing, although on a smaller scale.And given the hits the dollar is taking, I have no doubt that at least part of the reason Israel is backing the dollar is on the basis of our alliance with them.

Tell me again how we 'get nothing' from our relationship with Israel.

(h/t Carl)

Who Cares About Israel, Anyway?

So, it's Israel's 60th birthday.....

It seems to be fashionable this time for lots of people to wonder in print and aloud whether the country can survive...or if it should.

Especially in view of a very well funded effort to rewrite history and to delegitimize the US/Israel relationship. To hear some of these people, Israel is at the heart of the problems we have with the Muslim world, and things would be just fine if we became more 'balanced'...or translated, became more pro-Arab and curtailed our support for those pushy, stubborn Jews.

To hear others, Israel can't survive unless it pushes itself into an indefensible enclave and makes even more real estate in the Middle East Jew free, and perhaps not even then. They've forgotten that Israel has beaten much greater odds in the past. Nor do they see the grim irony in encouraging a retreat to borders 'for peace' that would make the destruction of the country and its people far more likely.

But let's take an objective look. So what? What difference does what happens to Israel make to us here in America? Why should we care? Why is what happens to Israel important to the US? If Israel somehow ceased to exist, would it matter?

Very legitimate questions, especially as many people are unaware of the real answers.

To get there, let's put aside any of those slooshy considerations of fairness, justice, religion or humanitarian principles...and go for the cold, hard, self-serving realpolitik reasons why what happens to Israel is important to the US.

First, history shows that the Jews are the early warning signal of history for the West, and the atrocities visited on them first get visited on the non-Jewish world later. Hitler is one example, Islamic terrorism and jihad is another.

The tactics used to bomb New York, London, Mumbai, Bali and Madrid were perfected in Israel. So was the disinformation and propaganda to rationalize such actions, now used against the US and Europe as well as Israel. What happened in Israel was and is a precursor as to what we can expect here. Israel was merely a front for jihad, not the cause of it.

Second, Israel is one of the most important and reliable allies the US has, and one of the few allies we have with a significant military and intel quotient. Israel's destruction would considerably weaken the US, especially in the Middle East and cost us strategically. Here are a few examples of how that has worked to our advantage:


* Israel singlehandedly pushed the Soviets out of the Middle East during the Cold War and provided America a first hand look at the latest Soviet weapons and technology...without the cost of a single American soldier.

* Israel saved literally thousands of American lives by taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak. If not for that, the casualty lists from the first Gulf War would have been very different.

* Israel, with a first class intelligence service in the Mossad and native Arabic and Farsi speakers has contributed immeasurably to US intel by adding to its access in the region and by adding the dimension of `humint'-human intelligence - on the ground. General George Keagan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, once stated in Congress that "Israel is worth five CIAs," based on the value of intelligence passed to our country. As our only truly reliable ally and strategic asset in the cradle of Islamofascism, it provides a bulwark and window on America's enemies in the region...like Iran. And Israel effectively secures NATO’s southeastern flank.

* Israel, as one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world is a major partner of the US in weapons technology in numerous joint projects like the Arrow missile. Israeli technology provided an important edge to the USA in both Desert Storm and the first Gulf War. And the US has access to the fruits of some of the most sophisticated technological installations in the world at Tel-Aviv University and the Technion, Israel's MIT. For instance, the Green Pine radar system utilized in both the US missile defense shield and the proposed missile defense bases in Europe was developed in Israel.

* Israeli troops, with their knowledge of warfare in the Middle East saved US lives by drawing on their experiences in Jenin and elsewhere to teach American soldiers how to fight in the urban battlegrounds of the Middle East, like Falujah. They have also developed unique technology specially adapted to conditions in the Middle East for recon and warfare..all of which have been made available to the US for the asking.

* Israel is the only country we have - with the possible exception of Australia - that makes itself and its facilities available to the United States in any contingency. Israel is America’s base in the region and the defender of America’s interests in that area of the world.

* Israel’s government supports the foreign policy objectives of the United States. In the UN, Israel votes with the United States over 90% of the time. The Arabs and other Moslem countries, recipients of American aid that collectively dwarfs what the US gives Israel, almost always vote against the United States.

* And what about that aid? Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid from the US yearly. Almost all of the military aid is spent in the United States, making Israel one of the major customers of the U.S. defense industry. Almost all of the economic assistance goes for debt repayment to the United States, incurred from military purchases dating back many years.Unlike our troops and bases stationed in Korea, Japan, Germany, and other places, not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Considering that the cost of one serviceperson per year — including backup and infrastructure — is about $200,000, and the minimum contingent is around 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States in cold hard dollars alone is on the order of $5 billion a year.

And that's without factoring in the value of the intel, technology and strategic benefits the US receives from our alliance with Israel.

Based on this, a good case could be made that aid to Israel, certainly the military portion, should be part of the United States defense budget and hardly considered `foreign aid' at all.

* Third, Israel is an important trading partner of the US and a leader in biotechnology, agriculture, solar, medical technology, computer science, irrigation technology, synthetic energy, and a number of other fields. And the 'value added' component to that trade far outweighs the actual dollar value. Many American corporations like Intel and Hewlett Packard have facilities there to take advantage of the talent coming out of TAU and the Technion. The cell phone and cell communications technology, for example, were perfected in Israel.

Fourth, if Israel disappeared, America's problems with the Muslim world wouldn't change one iota and in fact would get much worse.

A casual examination of history shows the fallacy of abandoning a loyal, powerful ally to appease an enemy, especially during wartime. Nor would it improve relations between the US and the Arab world . The proof of that is to examine the US relationship with the Arab World before we became one of Israel's main allies..after the `67 Six-Day War. That's because real alliances come from shared values..something we don't have in common with a large chunk of the Islamic world.

Getting rid of what the Muslims world refers to as the Little Satan would just weaken the Big Satan, America and deprive us of one of our strongest and most valuable allies. And a victory over the hated Jews would only embolden America's enemies.

Take Israel out of the equation and the Saudis would still be exporting jihad to the West, Iran and its allies would still be a threat to the US and jihadis would still target America and Americans. And like Israel, it would be simply because of who we are, not because of anything we've done.

So yes, ordinary Americans should DEFINITELY care what happens to Israel. From a strictly pragmatic, self-interested point of view if nothing else...because it's been a good relationship for both parties.

And wishing our ally a happy 60th is certainly a good and proper thing to do.

Israel pressured into accepting `mobility' in border crossings. All of Israel's security organizations send protest letters to Sharon.

Condi Rice,James Wolfenson and the EU succeeded in pressuring Israel to allow full access to the Palestinians with little or no safeguards.

In an unprecendented move, written protests and warnings were submitted to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz about the major hazards in store when the crossings are reopened later this month and the rest of the accord goes into effect. Obviously the Israeli security services wanted this in writing to clearly record their opposition and establish where responsibility lies in the event things go wrong..as they most certainly will.

The protests came from the top levels of Israel’s armed forces, the Shin Beit and all other intelligence services, as well as the police...and with good reason.

According to the agreement:

1.Israel is divested of the means of keeping terrorists from making free use of the crossings which reopen Nov. 25 and the Palestinian convoys driving from Gaza to the West Bank and back from Dec. 15. There is no longer any barrier to Palestinian terrorists bringing shoulder-launched anti-air missiles any time to the point from which they can turn Israel’s international airport into a disaster zone and paralyze international air traffic to and from the country. As General Dan Halutz reluctantly admitted, such weapons have already been smuggled into Gaza since the Israeli pull out.

2.Israel is denied any veto power over the arrival of terrorists from Sinai to Gaza or from Gaza to the West Bank in both directions. A wanted terrorist can simply board a bus in Gaza and commute to Hebron or Ramallah without a problem. Israel officials may not stop and search it the vehicle, albeit on Israeli soil, let alone make an arrest.

3.American and European inspectors at the Gaza-Israeli crossings will not allow the Israeli officers free rein to effectively search them for hazardous freights so that the 150-per-day quota can be reached. The Palestinians will thus be quite free to move as many terrorists and as much material and explosives as they like between the Gaza and the West Bank.

At the crossings from Gaza into Israel, Israel surrendered the prerogative to shut down them down to secure personnel against terror alerts, although these facilities are prime terrorist targets and an attempt was made against the Karni crossing yesterday. The Israelis have to first notify the US embassy in Tel Aviv and back up its “request” with specific information, thus giving away its intelligence sources. It must then wait for permission from Washington – or its refusal - to the closure!

By surrendering this point, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon relinquished a key part of Israel’s sovereign right to self-defense and agreed to make the task of its own security forces in protecting the country an impossible job. It's likely that Palestinian `security forces' will be let loose on a wide swathe of southern Israel to escort 150 trucks a day bound for Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin and Nablus.

The agreement over the Rafah crossing will also be applied to Gaza’s deep sea port which the Palestinians will begin constructing immediately. Israel has therefore forfeited control and oversight over incoming goods and people to Gaza by sea as well as overland.

In reviewing this, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Sharon and the present Israeli government have a death wish. And you have no idea how much it pains the freedom fighter to record this. The way is clear for the Palestinians to invade South Israel from two directions while lauching missles at Israel's coastal strip.

Obviously, the impetus for this came from the Saudis, who just got through talking to Secretary Rice... AND who incidentally were just allowed to join the WTO on the provisio that they end the de facto boycott of Israel.

Sharon's office made sure the six-page accord left by Rice was not translated into Hebrew. Israeli television and radio audiences were not exposed to the substance of this agreement. No wonder.