The Ultimate Ally: America needs Israel more than ever

[shaayecanaan]

STILL, ACCEPTING THE DISPASSIONATE definition of America's interests, can Israel realistically be considered an ally? Has it traditionally stood by the United States on issues of world importance and in periods of crisis? Is American support for Israel based on calculated estimates of national interests, or is it the product of pressure from richly funded lobbies?

Israel has always sided with the United States on major global issues. At the United Nations and in other international institutions, the two countries' voting patterns are virtually identical, as are their policies on human rights and international law. Beginning with the Korean conflict and throughout the Cold War, Israel backed America's military engagements, and it has maintained that support in the struggle with radical Islam. In times of danger, especially, Israel has responded to America's needs. Acceding to Richard M. Nixon's request to intervene to save Jordan from Syrian invasion in 1970, Israel mobilized its army, and in 1991, in spite of missile attacks from Iraq, Israel honored George H.W. Bush's request not to retaliate.

Israel is not, of course, situated in some geographical backwater, but at the junction of paramount American interests. Its prominence on the eastern Mediterranean littoral, at the nexus of North Africa and Southwest Asia, has enabled the United States to minimize its military deployments in the area. In the Persian Gulf, by contrast, the absence of a dependable and sturdy ally like Israel has impelled the United States to commit hundreds of thousands of troops and trillions of dollars. Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig's observation 30 years ago still resonates today: "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/the_ultimate_ally

[Ken Burch]

1. Does having Israel as an ally HAVE to mean giving it a pass

on EVERYTHING the government or the IDF does to Palestinians?

If we're arming them, we have a right to have some say about what they do with the weaponry.

[azurnoir]

2. I will admit that it was difficult to read through 6 pages

of this guys (Micheal Oren's) drek however vacillating through history Jefferson, Franklin, the landing at Plymouth Rock ....... all involved would have supported Israel, of course never mentioning that all involved were colonists and in some cases slave owners but hey it's all good and on to what Israel has given the world and we are to conclude that the world would never ever have had these miraculous inventions without Israel. ON to the final remember who loves ya baby we're always there for ya no else will support or enable you like we will so do the same for us and that goes double for those 'Urpeans'
The piece is a truly rousing avocation of continuing cooperation and enablment between the US and Israeli governments, it almost changed my mind, well until you stop and well think a bit.....

[shaayecanaan]

3. "Spin" I think is the word...

He argues that Israel is a hubbub of commercial activity and it comes up with all sorts of technological marvels - including, apparently, the bandage that was used to staunch the head wound of Gabrielle Giffords.

All well and good, but presumably the Israeli firm that makes the bandage sold it to an American hospital, at a market price, in an arms-length transaction. Most probably that same Israeli firm would sell the bandage to China, or to anyone else that asked for it. Presumably it is not necessary to have a military alliance with Israel in order to get their bandages.

He then goes on to quote a military chappie who says that Israel is the "most unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the middle East. I think "the most unusable aircraft carrier" would be more apt. The US does its utmost to refrain from Israeli involvement in its military endeavours in order to try and keep its Arab allies on board.

Moreover, if the Israeli economy is forging ahead at such a cracking pace, one would have thought it about time they stopped sucking on Uncle Sugar's sagging teats to the tune of $3 billion a year.

[Jefferson23]

4. I don't know, I couldn't decide if Oren produced this because he is

concerned about something, perhaps the Move Over AIPAC event, or this is simply a maintenance piece.

Regardless, the guy is an asshole:

June 24, 2008
Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran

CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.

CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.

"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."

Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.

"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."

The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region.

U.S. intelligence estimates Iran won't be able to build a weapon until sometime early in the next decade. But Israel is operating on a much shorter timetable.

"The Iranians, according to Israeli security sources, will have an operable nuclear weapon by 2009. That's not a very long time," Oren said.

For now, the Bush administration is counting on new economic sanctions which took effect Tuesday to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program. But nobody's counting on it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/eveningnews/main4206201.shtml