Israel, the strong horse amidst the clash of Arab civilizations

[PJABBER]

One of the consequences of seeing the world only through your own eyes and being closed off to the reality of how others may view life and the impetus of history is that a certain myopia becomes entrenched.

Repeat something, lie or truth, and it becomes immutable.

What if the premise is inadequate, not all the facts are known, the cultures foreign and the perspectives get skewed to the comfortable rather than the actual?

We see this in this very forum daily, but the issue exists even in the highest reaches of government and academia.

I've lambasted the falsity of postmodernism and it's spawn progressivism, but I would be amiss to not offer something positive in turn and here I want to offer a reference to a book that might open a few people's eyes.

No, it is not a sensationalist expose or tawdry scandal recounting, but it reads like one with flair and with vigor. It is a book by someone who, after 9/11, decided he needed to know the truth about what the world had become, and why New York, his city, was wounded.

The book is The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, by Lee Smith.

A native of New York and former editor of The Village Voice, Smith invites us to take a journey to Arab lands, to live amongst the different people as he did in Egypt and in Lebanon. He offers an examination of the views that Americans and Europeans see as homogeneous, yet are far from being so.

The role of Arab culture and pride, the role a foreign yet familiar Israel plays in the Mid-East are understood by most to the depth of a caricature. The actual importance is much deeper and much more complex and this book does more than a fair job in providing the depth of required insight.

The entire Mid-East is fortunate to have an Israel in their midst, a reliable and necessary enemy yet one that represents the best of modern civilization and is both welcome and hated with jealous intensity by many as a counterpoint to the realities of their lives.

Carolyn Glick just wrote an article which extracts a few insights from Smith's book. The article is a worthy read in itself as it references current events that have not been explored here.

I hope it intrigues a few to delve further into what Smith found and why it is so important that we understand the context and the historical precedents of the events we witness but may not fully understand in that vitally important region.

Column One: Israel the strong horse

By CAROLINE GLICK
09/04/2010
The Jerusalem Post

To survive and thrive, Israel needs to rebuild the faith of the likes of Jordan’s Abdullah that it is the strong horse in the region. What does Jordan’s King Abdullah want from Israel?

This week, Abdullah gave a long and much cited interview to The Wall Street Journal. There he appeared to be begging US President Barack Obama to turn up the heat still further on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. As he has on a number of occasions, Abdullah argued that the Palestinian conflict with Israel is the cause or the justification of all the violence and emerging threats in the region.

By his telling, all of these threats, including Iran’s nuclear threat, will all but disappear if Israel accepts all of the Palestinian, (and Syrian), demands for land.

Abdullah’s criticism of Netanyahu dominated the news in Israel for much of the week. Commentators and reporters piled on, attacking Netanyahu for destroying whatever remains of Israel’s good name. In their rush to attack the premier, none of them stopped to consider that perhaps they were missing something fundamental about Abdullah’s interview.

But they were missing something. For there is another way to interpret Abdullah’s complaints. To understand it, however, it is necessary to consider the strategic constraints under which Abdullah operates. And the Israeli media, like the Western media as a whole, are incapable of recognizing that Abdullah has constraints that make it impossible for him to say what he means directly.

Abdullah is a Hashemite who leads a predominantly Palestinian country. His country was carved out by the British as a consolation prize for his great-grandfather after the Hashemites lost Syria to the French. As a demographic minority and ethnic transplant, the Hashemites have never been in a position to defend themselves or their kingdom against either their domestic or foreign foes. Consequently they have always been dependent out outside powers – first Britain, and then Israel, and to a lesser degree the US – for their survival.

When Abdullah’s strategic predicament is borne in mind, his statements to the Journal begin to sound less like a diatribe against Israel and more like a plea to Israel to be strong. For instance, his statement, “In a way, I think North Korea has better international relations than Israel,” can be interpreted as a lament.

Abdullah fears war and he recognizes that the Iranian axis – which includes Syria, Lebanon, elements of the Palestinian Authority and elements of Iraq – is the biggest threat to his regime. Syria, which dispatched the al-Qaida bombers who blew up the hotels in Amman in 2005, threatens Jordan today almost as menacingly as it did in 1970, when it supported the PLO in its bid to overthrow Abdullah’s father. Back then, Israel stepped in and saved the Hashemites.

Abdullah’s preoccupation with Iran was clear throughout the interview. Indeed, much of his criticism of Israel needs to be viewed through the prism of his obvious fear that Teheran’s race to regional dominance will not be thwarted.

The reason that Israel’s media – like the American and European media – failed to consider what was motivating Abdullah to speak as he did is because both Israelis and Westerners suffer from an acute narcissism that prevents them from noticing anything but themselves. So rather than view events from Abdullah’s perspective and consider what might be motivating him to speak, they interpret his statements to serve their own ideological purposes. In the case of the leftist-dominated media, Abdullah’s statements were pounced upon as further proof that Israel, and particularly Netanyahu, are to blame for all the pathologies of the Arabs and all the threats in the Middle East. If Israel could only be coerced into giving up land, everything would be fine.

Much of what the West misses about the Arab world is spelled out for us in a new and masterful book. The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, by Lee Smith, is a unique and vital addition to the current debate on the Middle East because rather than interpret the Arabs through the ideological lenses of the West, Smith describes them, their cultural and political motivations as the Arabs – in all their ethnic, religious, ideological, national and tribal variations – themselves perceive these things.

Smith, a native New Yorker, was the literary editor of The Village Voice when Arab hijackers brought down the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Propelled by the attacks, he headed to the Middle East to try to understand what had just hit his city. Smith moved to Cairo, where he studied Arabic and drank in the cultural and political forces surrounding him. After a year, he moved to Beirut, where he remained for another three years.

The Strong Horse speaks to two Western audiences, the Left, or the self-proclaimed “realists,” who ascribe to the belief that the Arabs have no particular interests but are rather all motivated to act by external forces and specifically by the US and Israel; and the neo-conservatives, who believe that at heart, the Arabs all yearn for Western-style liberal democracy.

Smith rejects both these notions out of hand. Instead, by recounting the stories of men and women he met during his sojourn in the region, and weaving them into the tales of Arab cultural, religious and political leaders who have risen and fallen since the dawn of Islam 1,400 years ago, Smith presents a few basic understandings of the Arab world that place the actions of everyone from Osama bin Laden to Jordan’s King Abdullah in regional and local contexts. The localization of these understandings in turn opens up a whole new set of options for Westerners and particularly for Israelis in seeking ways to contend with the region’s pathologies that involve policies less sweeping than grand, yet futile designs of peace-making, or fundamental restructuring of the social compacts of Arab societies.

Smith develops six central insights in his book.

• Arab political history is a history of the powerful ruling the weak through violence.

• Islamic terror and governmental tyranny are the two sides of the coin of Arab political pathology.

• Liberal democratic principles are unattractive to the vast majority of Arabs, who believe that politics is and by rights ought to remain a violent enterprise and prefer the narrative of resistance to the narrative of liberty.

• Liberal Arab reformers are unwilling to fight for their principles.

• The 1,400-year period of Sunni dominance over non-Sunni minorities is now threatened seriously for the first time by the Iranian-controlled Shi’ite alliance which includes Syria, Lebanon, and Hamas.

• And finally, that it is intra-Arab rivalries and the desire to rule and be recognized as the strong horse that motivates jihadists to wage continuous wars against Israel and the West and against regimes in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia alike.

As Smith explains, today Arab leaders view Israel as a possible strong horse that could defeat the rising Shi’ite axis that threatens them. And now, as the US under Obama abdicates its leadership role in world affairs by turning on its allies and attempting to appease its foes while scaling back America’s own military strength, Israel is the Sunnis’ only hope for beating back the Shi’ite alliance. If Israel does not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, then the likes of Kings Abdullah of Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak are going to be forced to accept Iran as the regional hegemon.

When seen against the backdrop of Smith’s analysis, it is clear that as his father did when he supported Saddam Hussein against Saudi Arabia in the lead-up to the 1991 Gulf War, Abdullah was hedging his bets in his interview with the Journal. If Israel fails to act, he wants to be on record expressing his animosity towards the Jewish state and blaming it for all the region’s problems. On the other hand, he used the interview as an opportunity to again send a message to anyone willing to listen that he wants Israel to assert itself and continue to protect his kingdom.

The recognition that a strong Israel is the most stabilizing force in the region is perhaps the main casualty of the Left’s land-for-peace narrative and the two-state solution paradigm which wrongly promote the weakness of Israel as the foremost potential contributor to stability in the region. Because Israel is everyone’s convenient bogeyman, it cannot form permanent alliances with any of its neighbors and as a consequence, it cannot gang up against another state. Because it will always be the first target of the most radical actors in the region, Israel has a permanent interest in defeating them or, at a minimum denying those actors the means to cause catastrophic harm.

Finally, although no one will admit it, everyone knows that Israel has neither the ability nor the desire to acquire and rule over Arab lands, and therefore there is no reason for anyone to fear its strength. For the past 62 years, Israel has only used force to protect itself when it was convinced it had no other option, and it holds only territories designated for the Jewish homeland by the League of Nations 90 years ago and lands vital to its self-defense.

Smith was living in Beirut when Hizbullah launched its war against Israel in July 2006. As he tells the story, “When the government of Ehud Olmert decided to make war against Hizbullah in the summer of 2006, all of Washington’s Arab allies... were overjoyed. With the Americans having taken down a Sunni security pillar – Saddam – and then getting tied down in Iraq, Riyadh, Cairo and the rest sensed the Iranians were gaining ground and that they were vulnerable. Even though they were incapable of doing anything about it themselves, the Sunni powers... wanted to see the [Iranian] bloc rolled back.”

Unfortunately for them, Olmert and his government were incompetent to lead Israel in war and within weeks showed that they had no idea how to accomplish their stated aim of crushing Hizbullah. When this reality sunk in, and the Arab masses rallied behind Iran, Hizbullah and Syria against their own governments, “the Sunni regimes could abide no longer and demanded the United States move to a cease-fire immediately.”

No doubt, in part as a consequence of their disappointment with Israel’s military performance in Lebanon and subsequently in Gaza, today leaders like Abdullah of Jordan are pessimistic about the future. But there is also no doubt who they are rooting for. And this has profound significance for Israel, not only as it prepares its plans to contend with Iran but also as it considers it national priorities.

For too long, Israel’s leaders have believed that to thrive regionally, it needs to convince the West to support it politically. But the fact is that Israel is in Asia, not in Europe or North America. To survive and thrive, Israel needs to rebuild the faith of the likes of Jordan’s Abdullah that it is the strong horse in the region. And once it does that, with or without formal peace treaties, and with or without democracies flourishing region-wide, Israel will facilitate regional peace and stability for the benefit of all.

 

[Lemon law]

One can build a straw man out of any set of anecdotal evidence. But if nothing else, Israel does nothing to heal any Muslim splits between Sunni and Shiite, and its been US meddling in Iraq, that ignites new mid-east tensions. And now the Kurds can be added as the new jokers to fuel other regional tensions.

But cheer up, its the Shiites, especially in Iran, who are the enemies of Al-Quida and Ossama Bin Laden. And it was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2005 that boosted Lebanese support for Hezbollah from 25% pre invasion to 75% afterward.

 

[PJABBER]

One can build a straw man out of any set of anecdotal evidence. But if nothing else, Israel does nothing to heal any Muslim splits between Sunni and Shiite, and its been US meddling in Iraq, that ignites new mid-east tensions. And now the Kurds can be added as the new jokers to fuel other regional tensions.

But cheer up, its the Shiites, especially in Iran, who are the enemies of Al-Quida and Ossama Bin Laden. And it was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2005 that boosted Lebanese support for Hezbollah from 25% pre invasion to 75% afterward.

Does any Arab state fear Israel unless they themselves have a plan to destroy them?

 

[Lemon law]

PJABBER may ask, "Does any Arab state fear Israel unless they themselves have a plan to destroy them?"

And I ask is that of a necessity a linked question. But even then, will Arab fear of current Israeli military might ever inspire love and trust? And I submit the short answer to that is always, for Israel and other types states, that only inspires hate, mistrust, and a lasting desire to be rid of the threat when the opportunity arises.

But that never prevents other militarily weaker nations to manipulate and use nations like Israel to do its heavy lifting for them. And maybe Saudi Arabia, a big loser in the US decision to occupy Iraq, is somewhat a perfect example. Basically, a nearly 100% Sunni nation like Saudi Arabia had existed in harmony with nearly 100% Shiite Iran ever since the Sunni Shiite split occurred in 800 AD. But once the US deposed Saddam Huessein, the Sunni ruler of Iraq, and GWB started his gotta have democracy in Iraq, it meant that that the Shia, as the largest group in Iraq, would end up with the lions share of the political power in Iraq. And a Shiite dominated Iran and Iraq, quite effectively severs all of Saudi Arabia's land links to the rest of the Muslim world.

So its somewhat understandable that Saudi Arabia would be happy to see Israel smite Iran, but it hardly makes Israel their ally. And at the same time, wealthy Saudis fund the bulk of anti-Israeli terrorist groups.

 

[mjrpes3]

Seeing that the subtext of any discussion of Israel nowadays is its conflict with Iran, the OP has a fatal flaw in his "analysis". Persians are not Arabs.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Seeing that the subtext of any discussion of Israel nowadays is its conflict with Iran, the OP has a fatal flaw in his "analysis". Persians are not Arabs.

so what?? You are only the 1,234,746 th person to point that out!
But what you people don`t realize is persian or not the anylysis is still spot on.....

Unless you care to enlighten us as if this one tiny point of yours matters diddley...

 

[Noobtastic]

Seeing that the subtext of any discussion of Israel nowadays is its conflict with Iran, the OP has a fatal flaw in his "analysis". Persians are not Arabs.

There is nothing inherently Persian about Iranian foreign policy. Syria and Iran have near-identical POV regarding Israel and Zionism. When the Soviet Union collasped and the Arab states informally surrendered in exchange for a cold peace and protection under the american defense umbrella, Iran just filled the vacuum.

Persians are not Arabs, but Islamist trolls have a very short history in historical and greater Persia.

The Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, use Israel as a lightening rod to keep the people subjugated and avoid reform. Even in the 1920s and 30s leaders of the revolt exploited the Jewish presence to seize power and unite Arabs together.

We know this because more Arabs ended up being killed by Arabs than by Jews or British in power-struggles. Same deal in the Lebanon Civil War, and 1st/2nd intifada.

Well, actually - about 1/3 of all Palestinians casualties were killed by other Palestinians between 1989-2010, but it's still a significant amount.

What we do know is Arabs who are citizens of Israel have a much more positive view of Jews, and are generally more enlightened and intelligent than Arabs who live in Jew-free/anti-zionist states.

According to Human Rights Watch (not the most reliable), only 40% of Israeli Arabs deny the holocaust, while the general Arab world is closer to 70-100%.

 

[mjrpes3]

so what?? You are only the 1,234,746 th person to point that out!
But what you people don`t realize is persian or not the anylysis is still spot on.....

Unless you care to enlighten us as if this one tiny point of yours matters diddley...

There is nothing for me to defend. The burden is on you to explain why an "analysis" of Arabs can be applied also to a group of non-Arabs.

As you prepare your response, it would be good to address the fact that a majority of Iranians do seem interested in a moderate, democratic state but are currently overruled by a brutal authoritarian regime. Yet accepting this fact contradicts the article's presumption that "Liberal democratic principles are unattractive to the vast majority of Arabs, who believe that politics is and by rights ought to remain a violent enterprise and prefer the narrative of resistance to the narrative of liberty."

 

[Lemon law]

For once I half way agree with IHV, recent Arab history is nothing to brag about, but I fail to see why a failed past predicts future Arab behavior. One of the great mid-east game changers may be the rise of some new and more effective Nassar type, the potential is great now, but so far no such animal. Nor will I speculate about that being a good or a bad thing.

But the only thing certain is that times change.

 

[Noobtastic]

For once I half way agree with IHV, recent Arab history is nothing to brag about, but I fail to see why a failed past predicts future Arab behavior. One of the great mid-east game changers may be the rise of some new and more effective Nassar type, the potential is great now, but so far no such animal. Nor will I speculate about that being a good or a bad thing.

But the only thing certain is that times change.

You fail to see why past behavior predicts future behavior?

Psychology 101 LL.

However, when states make long standing agreements between each other and one party (particularly the Palestinians) doesn't honor them, it has several effects. First it makes any agreements you made in the past or try to make in the future suspect - why trust someone who's going to flip whenever its convenient? That undermines an alliance and even negotiations with countries/parties who aren't allies.

Israel fulfilled nearly all its obligations to the Palestinians under Oslo 1, but Arafat did not. It was supposed to be 'land for peace', but the Palestinians took the land and used it as a means to continue the conflict.

Clinton met with Arafat more than any other foreign dignitary and made it his mission to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

In a final meeting with Arafat he said, "When it comes to Middle East Peace, I am a failure. And it's you that made me one."

Why should Israel continue to placate the Arab states and subject itself to constant negotiations, when it is very likely the Palestinians and Arabs will inevitable break their promises?

Obama's whole-sale embargo on weapons sales to Israel in violation of agreements made by previous administrations does not make Israel feel secure or confident. Why should it make nice with Palestinians when it is being punished by an historic ally for doing nothing other than existing?

Obama has demonstrated his glowing support for "allies" like Egypt and Pakistan, selling them huge amounts of weapons and increasing their aid, while denying Israel all weapons.

Seriously. The moment Obama was elected he enacted provisions through the Pentagon that allowed him to circumvent congress and deny Israel weapons and technology whenever he sees fit.

387 smart munitions had been slated to join pre-positioned U.S. military equipment in Israel Air Force bases as agreed by Bush. Obama ordered the shipment to be diverted to Diego Garcia. This almost ensures Israel will be forced to use a tactical nuke if it wishes to destroy any one of Iran's nuclear facilities.

Obama has also refused to approve any major Israeli requests for U.S. weapons platforms or advanced systems.

This includes the AH-64D Apache attack helicopters (6 ordered), refueling systems, advanced munitions and data on a stealth variant of the F-15E.

In addition, Obama has been trying to re-write Israel's status as a major non-NATO ally to prevent it from procuring the F-35, even though Israel has spent close to 30 million of its own money towards the research and development of the F-35 with the agreement that they would be able to evaluate the fighter and have the right to purchase it

On top of this, Obama has ordered the state department to deny Israel pre-export licenses for the new generation F-15S.

Essentially this would prevent Israel from acquiring the F-15 through FMS, even though Israel has also received 40+ F-15s since the 1980s.

Obama increased aid to Israel by more than 3 billion a year the moment he was elected, so they have not cut aid to Israel outright. What has happened is that Obama has developed restrictive policies towards Israel that basically prevents it from purchasing weapons in the USA.

You see, the majority of aid Israel receives must be spent in the United States, so since Obama has made it his mission to deny all weapons sales to Israel, the US administration has implemented one of the first total-arms embargo on Israel since Reagan.

In contrast to the Arab states, Obama has approved nearly 3 billion in military aid to Pakistan for 2010, none of which has pre-conditions.

The moment disgusting decision made by Obama is his desire to gift close to 40 fighter aircraft to Lebanon, as well as helicopters, tanks, and UAVs.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3720167,00.html

This in spite of the fact that Hezbollah has a majority stake in the government, and Syria controls the executive and legislative branch. For all intents and purposes Hezbollah is the sole military power of Lebanon, and the Lebanese government has openly stated its pact with Hezbollah as united.

So Obama is selling aircraft to Lebanon that would only be used against Israel. Obama is selling helicopters to Egypt. Obama is gifting 3 billion in aid to Pakistan and 5 billion in aid to Afghanistan.

But Israel is being denied basic technology.

Why should Israel lift a finger for America if its being treated like an enemy? Uh?

It just disgusts me. Obama has decided our enemies are far more powerful than our allies, and its much safer for us to make nice with the collective Muslim world and sell Israel out, then keep Israel as leverage against the Arabs.

I bet Lemon Law is just jizzing in his pants over this.

 

[Lemon law]

The Flaw in the IHV statement of, "Why should Israel lift a finger for America if its being treated like an enemy? Uh?"

Is simply when has Israel done anything for America?????????????????????????????????

Two of the worst foreign relations Presidents in American history, LBJ and Nixon decided to use Israel as a divide and Conquer issue for oil rich Arabs. I still remember that rascal Kissinger saying oil is too important to entrust to Arabs. Before the 1967 war, the Israeli ally was France, but no longer. And now Israel sells US technology given them free gratis to China.

And now the Obama administration is asking, what is more important to the USA, a just and lasting mid-east, or maintaining a huge military Israeli hegemony that is counterproductive to that very just and lasting mid-east peace? And Netanyuhu has given the USA its answer by demanding its non existent right to keep settling in East Jerusalem. A deal killer to a lasting mid-east peace.

The pig faction Israeli settler party fantasy is that they can outlast Obama, but I suspect all future Presidents will follow the Obama lead.

The other Israeli fan club fantasy is that a Israel that is forced to settle for a just and lasting peace will be worse off for it, when in fact they may be far better off.

 

[Noobtastic]

Is simply when has Israel done anything for America?????????????????????????????????

Throughout the six decades since the re-establishment of Israel, an often repeated claim in made that “Israel is a draining liability on the United States.” This claim is bogus and an examination of the facts hopefully will consign this charge to the trash-heap where it belongs.

Further adding to the problem are statements made by and the conduct of Israel's leftist leaders since 1993 create the false impression that Israeli-American ties constitute a one-way relationship. The impression is given that the U.S. gives and Israel merely receives and thus must constantly bow to “American pressure” as personified by the U.S. State Department.

The truth is that the relationship is a two-way partnership. For example:

• In 1952, as the Cold War got underway, U.S. Army Chief-of-Staff Omar Bradley called for the integration of Israel into the Mediterranean Basin area, in light of the country's location and unique capabilities.

• In 1967, Israel defeated a radical Arab, pro-Soviet offensive, which threatened to bring about the collapse of pro-American Arab regimes and disrupt oil supply, thus severely undermining the American standard of living. The U.S. gained valuable military information from analysis of captured Soviet equipment, including SAM-2, SAM-12, Mig-21 aircraft, and Soviet T-54 battle tanks. In fact, Israel gave an entire squadron of MiG-21s to the U.S. which was dubbed the “Top Gun” squadron and used by the U.S. Air and Naval forces for training purposes. Since 1967, Israel transferred captured Soviet weapons systems to the U.S. Pentagon after every conflict: 1967, 1967-70, 1973, 1982, 1990 (Scud remnants from the Gulf War), and 2006 (remnants of Iranian supplied missiles.

• In the 1967-1970 1000 Day War of Attrition, the IDF, armed with American aircraft successfully defeated a Soviet-supplied air defense system, pointing out the deficiencies in Soviet air-defense doctrine to US defense planners. Israel shared captured military equipment include P-2 radar and Soviet tanks with the U.S. military.

• In 1970, Israel brought about the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Jordan, at a time when the U.S. was tied up by wars in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, thus preventing the fall of the pro-American Hashemite regime and the installation of a pro-Soviet radical Palestinian terrorist regime.

• In 1973 – thanks to U.S. re-supply, but without U.S. forces, Israel defeated Soviet-trained and equipped Egyptian and Syrian forces. Israel again shared captured Soviet equipment, including T-62 battle tanks with the U.S. Israel emerged as the only reliable ally where U.S. troops could land, where U.S. equipment can be pre-positioned, where the U.S. has friendly port facilities (in Haifa and Ashdod) in the entire Middle East region. This too has saved the U.S. billions of dollars.

• 1970s - Joseph Sisco, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, assistant to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during the latter’s shuttle diplomacy, told the Israeli author and military expert, Shmuel Katz: “I want to assure you, Mr. Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us.”

• In 1981, Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, delaying Saddam Hussein’s quest for nuclear weapons. It thus provided the U.S. with the option of engaging in conventional wars with Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

• The vice president General Dynamics which produces the F16 fighter jets has stated that Israel is responsible for 600 improvements in the plane's systems, modifications estimated to be worth billions of dollars, which spared dozens of research and development years.

• In 1982, Israel destroyed Soviet anti-aircraft batteries in Lebanon that were considered immune to American weapons. Israel promptly shared the operation's lessons, estimated to be worth billions of dollars.

• Former Secretary of State and NATO forces commander Alexander Haig has stated that he is pro-Israeli because 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.

• During the first Gulf War 1991, Israel provided invaluable intelligence, an umbrella of air cover for military cargo, and had personnel planted in the Iraqi desert to pick up downed American pilots.

• General George Keegan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence has publicly declared that “Israel is worth five CIA’s.” He further stated that between 1974 and 1990, Israel received $18.3 billion in U.S. military grants. During the same period Israel provided the U.S. with $50-80 billion in intelligence, research and development savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the U.S.

• In 2005, Israel provided America with the world's most extensive experience in homeland defense and warfare against suicide bombers and car bombs. American soldiers train in IDF facilities and Israeli-made drones fly above the "Sunni Triangle" in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, providing U.S. Marines with vital intelligence.

• In September 2007, the IAF destroyed a Syrian-North Korean nuclear plant, extending the US’s strategic arm. It provided the US with vital information on Russian air defense systems, which are also employed by Iran. It bolstered the US posture of deterrence and refuted the claim that US-Israel relations have been shaped by political expediency.

• In 2009, Israel shares with the US its battle-tested experience in combating Palestinian and Hizbullah terrorism, which are the role model of anti-US Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. US GIs benefit from Israel’s battle tactics against car bombs, improvised explosive devices and homicide bombing. An Israel-like ally in the Persian Gulf would have spared the need to dispatch US troops to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

• Israel has relayed to the U.S. lessons of battle (during the Cold War – Soviet military doctrine) and counter-terrorism (including aircraft security, homicide-suicide bombings) which reduce American losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevent attacks on U.S. soil, upgrade American weapons, and contribute to the U.S. economy. Without Israel, the U.S. would have been forced to deploy tens of thousands of American troops in the eastern Mediterranean Basin, at a cost of billions of dollars a year.

• Senator Daniel Inouye has recently (2005) argued Israeli information regarding Soviet arms saved the U.S. billions of dollars. The contribution made by Israeli intelligence to America is greater than that provided by all NATO countries combined, he said.

• Israel's utilization of American arms guarantees its existence, but at the same time gives U.S. military industries, such as Boeing and General Dynamics, a competitive edge compared to European industries, while also boosting American military production, producing American jobs, and improving America's national security. Japan and South Korea, for example, preferred the "Hawkeye" spy plane and the MD-500 chopper, both purchased and upgraded by Israel, over comparable British and French aircraft.

• The American industries want U.S. aid to Israel to continue. The bulk of the $1.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel must be spent in the United States. That provides jobs for some 50,000 U.S. workers. Virtually all of the $1.2 billion in annual economic aid goes for repayment of debt to the United States, incurred from military purchases dating back many years. This debt is now close to being liquidated.

• Innovative Israeli technologies have a similar effect on American civilian, including computer-related industries and agricultural industries, which view Israel as a successful research and development site.

• Members of the U.S. Congress leaders, then Vice President Dick Cheney, and then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are aware of Israel's unique contribution to U.S. interests. But, in fact, they all wonder why the post-1993 Israel does not use its impressive contribution as leverage, in sharp contrast to the pre-1993 Israel.

• In contrast to our commitments to Korea, Japan, Germany and other parts of the world, 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 estimated to be about $200,000 per year, and assuming a minimum contingent of 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States on that score alone are on the order of $5 billion a year.

 

[Lemon law]

What a wonderful cold war argument IHV, you almost want me to to reignite the cold war
and revel it the prospect of world wide global thermo nuclear war and mutual annihilation.

But cheer up, any military industrial complex needs places to test their wares, proxy wars we call them, so we can find places to test our respective wares in real life combat, without having a direct super power confrontation.

We did in Korea, sabre jets against migs, solved nothing but managed to kill a bunch of people, next up Vietnam, more jet dog fights but now we got to test Russian Sams against B-52 bombers. Once again, its solved nothing but it did manage to kill some 30% of the Vietnamese people. Next up Russian helicopters against American stingers, making helicopters largely obsolete. But that too solved nothing other than making Afghanistan into another American quagmire where advanced weapons are counterproductive to solving anything.

How wonderful, now our American Military complex can test our military weapons on the mid-east and watch Israel test and refine their use. The IHV myth is that its will ever lead anywhere other than more and more intractable conflict.

In short the big losers of any proxy war, are the nations that play the superpower game.

And gasp, will we not be better off if all super powers quit the the proxy war game.

 

[Noobtastic]

What a wonderful cold war argument IHV, you almost want me to to reignite the cold war
and revel it the prospect of world wide global thermo nuclear war and mutual annihilation.

But cheer up, any military industrial complex needs places to test their wares, proxy wars we call them, so we can find places to test our respective wares in real life combat, without having a direct super power confrontation.

We did in Korea, sabre jets against migs, solved nothing but managed to kill a bunch of people, next up Vietnam, more jet dog fights but now we got to test Russian Sams against B-52 bombers. Once again, its solved nothing but it did manage to kill some 30% of the Vietnamese people. Next up Russian helicopters against American stingers, making helicopters largely obsolete. But that too solved nothing other than making Afghanistan into another American quagmire where advanced weapons are counterproductive to solving anything.

How wonderful, now our American Military complex can test our military weapons on the mid-east and watch Israel test and refine their use. The IHV myth is that its will ever lead anywhere other than more and more intractable conflict.

In short the big losers of any proxy war, are the nations that play the superpower game.

And gasp, will we not be better off if all super powers quit the the proxy war game.

This is what you said LL:

Is simply when has Israel done anything for America?????????????????????????????????

I just pasted a laundry list of contributions Israel has made to America.

If you want to know more about Israel-USA cooperation just ask. It is one of the few allies that actually contributes to the USA, unlike money sinks like Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, etc...that give nothing in return except more terror and anti-American bullshit.

 

[brandonb]

So Israel gave us some insight into our military weapons and did some warring against our soviet counterparts in war.

Wow! What an accomplishment.

Now give us a laundry list of what else we got in return for our support? I will get you started off.

9/11
islamic terrorists trying to destroy us all over the globe
billions in foreign aid
billions in foreign aid to the ones you destroy to rebuild
nukes under the table

To me what we gained does not outweigh what we got in return.

 

[Noobtastic]

So Israel gave us some insight into our military weapons and did some warring against our soviet counterparts in war.

Wow! What an accomplishment.

Now give us a laundry list of what else we got in return for our support? I will get you started off.

9/11
islamic terrorists trying to destroy us all over the globe
billions in foreign aid
billions in foreign aid to the ones you destroy to rebuild
nukes under the table

To me what we gained does not outweigh what we got in return.

Israel did 9/11??

Lololol.

Worse than the truthers.

 

[nick1985]

Israel did 9/11??

Lololol.

Worse than the truthers.

its funny isnt it?

 

[brandonb]

What is so hard to comprehend. Our support for Israel caused 9/11. Osama said so himself.

 

[SamurAchzar]

What is so hard to comprehend. Our support for Israel caused 9/11. Osama said so himself.

Osama could have been more grateful, being that the CIA trained and armed him and his fellas.
The fact the US is made mostly of Christian infidels that fuck around with his country (Saudi Arabia), militarily protecting and supporting the regime he's looking to overthrow probably has nothing to do with that. Oh no. Blame Israel.
Is that why his fellas bomb Saudi Arabia too?

 

[Lemon law]

Whoopie, Sammy sez, "Osama could have been more grateful."

Which has exactly nothing to do with nothing in this thread.

Ossama is not the first nor will he be the last anti- Israeli terrorists, a quite valid case can be made that Israeli pig at all policies justly earns that terrorism in Israel , and that its in everyone's best interests to have a just mid-east peace, that can only have the net effect of discrediting terrorists.

Terrorism is often the politics of the powerless, terrorism has at least a 6000 year history, so why should we assume it can be ended. Terrorism is caused by injustice and only ended by a reduction of injustice.

 

[Noobtastic]

What is so hard to comprehend. Our support for Israel caused 9/11. Osama said so himself.

osama barely talked about israel. if you read his manifesto he mentioned "zionism" once, 99% of the speech is about americas support for arab puppets and presence in SAUDI ARABIA.

but go ahead..blame israel.

 

[Zorkorist]

Whoopie, Sammy sez, "Osama could have been more grateful."

Which has exactly nothing to do with nothing in this thread.

Ossama is not the first nor will he be the last anti- Israeli terrorists, a quite valid case can be made that Israeli pig at all policies justly earns that terrorism in Israel , and that its in everyone's best interests to have a just mid-east peace, that can only have the net effect of discrediting terrorists.

Terrorism is often the politics of the powerless, terrorism has at least a 6000 year history, so why should we assume it can be ended. Terrorism is caused by injustice and only ended by a reduction of injustice.

No. Terrorism, as we know it is caused by culture or religion.

To the extent Terrorism is organized, it is NOT organized by people that face injustice.

It IS organized by religious and cultural fanatics.

-John

 

[Noobtastic]

Terrorism is caused by injustice and only ended by a reduction of injustice.

Classic Arabist propaganda.

The so-called "war on terror" provides a platform to advance Islamic and their leftist enablers under the cover of a "struggle" - or as you say, "injustices" - for statehood, restoration of stolen land, etc..etc.

These issues are almost always cloaked under desperate human rights groups branding terrorists as merely "victimized" guerrillas responding to plight and oppression.

The present-day enmity towards America, Israel, rivaling muslims (shiite-sunni split), kurds, dinkas, etc...is frequently rationalized by people like Lemon Law as a by-product of imperialism, American foreign policy, occupation, etc.

The reality is this violence is not a response to plight or injustices, but mandated based on a book written 14 centuries ago. Modern day Muslims continue to enforce this book and impose its teachings on the infidel.

Fellow muslims who disagree are branded as "collaborators" and summarily executed. Other religions must be regulated to dhimmi, or protected status, where they are charged special taxes in exchange for their safety.


This attitude towards non-Muslims is a crucial part of political Islam and belief, and the greatest wrath is not surprisingly reserved for the Jews.

People tend to wonder why anti-semitism is such a problem in the Muslim world today. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Islam would know the Jews refused to recognize Mohammed as the final prophet, and Muslims still haven't gotten over it.

Even if we assume the extreme interpretation that terror against USA or Israel is a response to "occupation", can anyone explain the terrorism directed at fellow muslims?

Vast majority of Islamic terror is independent of Israel and the USA. Nearly 60,000 people have been killed in Islamic terror attacks in the Philippines since 1960. Over 2,000 buddhists have been killed M by Islamic terrorists in Thailand since 2004. What injustices have the buddhist minority imposed on the peace-loving Islamic terrorists?

Jama-Islamiya in Indonesia has killed thousands of Christians and foreigners, what have they done to provoke the Muslims?

Nearly 40,000 muslims have been killed by suicide bombers in Iraq. What did they do?

What about Muslims in Nigeria murdering christians for refusing to follow sharia law? What about the 100,000 dinkas murdered by Arab islamists in Sudan, what injustices have they imposed on the Arab majority?

Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. I don't care how impoverished you are, spoon-feeding children bigotry and brainwashing them to engage in suicide-terrorism cannot be logically explained as a reaction to "injustices." Similarly, flying planes into buildings and blowing up embassies cannot be rationalized as a response to an "occupation."

According to Lemon Law, Noam Chomsky, and Barack Obama - we, the West, the imperialists, have failed to win the affection of the Muslim world. If only we end our support for Israel. If only we leave Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. If only we end our aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Lebanon. If only we stop "meddling" in their affairs and trying to impose our imperialist agenda on them.

The reality is - there is NOTHING we can do to end the violence. You cannot appease these people.

The only thing they understand is BRUTE FORCE. Syria murdered 40,000 muslim brotherhood during the Hama massacre. Since then, the Muslim brotherhood has largely avoided attacking Syria. Israel killed 1,100-1,400 homicidal Palestinians in Gaza. Since then, terror has been reduced by more than 80% and Hamas is even killing fellow Palestinians that should rockets at sderot.

Egypt executed 2,000 Islamists since 1990, and violence has been reduced. India sent 500,000 troops to occupy Kashmir and build a nice big fence around their country harmed with trip-wires and mines.

Negotiations, dialogue, "confidence-building measures" are only used as a pretext for further demands. You cannot appease terrorists. You cannot buy them off.

Lemon Law should go move to the Muslim world. See how long his fairy-tell leftist apologism lasts.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not trying to play moderator here, but I kind feel if people are going to cut and paste from web sources, they ought to provide a link or at least attribution.

- wolf

 

[Noobtastic]

Not trying to play moderator here, but I kind feel if people are going to cut and paste from web sources, they ought to provide a link or at least attribution.

- wolf

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/obamas_ire_not_us_interests_di_1.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/eternal_islamic_enmity_toward.html