Vol: 112 Issue: 19 Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Last year a former Obama consultant, Anthony Cordesman, became the first high-level advisor to offer the argument that the US strategic alliance with Israel was harming US interests in the Middle East and should be scrapped.
Until Cordesman said it out loud, nobody else would. Since then, calling for an end to US aid for Israel has become something of a ’cause’ — everybody who is somebody (or who wants to be) has jumped aboard the bandwagon.
Atlantic columnist Andrew Sullivan argues that the best reason for throwing Israel from the train is because Israel refuses to “offer minimal cooperation” with international efforts to force Israel to commit national suicide to assuage the global sense of outrage at the “Palestinian problem.”
“I favor an end to aid for Israel because a) Israel doesn’t need it and b) we need the money and c) it doesn’t seem sensible to me to keep rewarding an ally that refuses to offer minimal cooperation. I also favor the US laying out its own preferred solution, perhaps as a way to recognize a Palestinian state in the UN, whatever Netanyahu wants.”
An imposed solution, no matter what Netanayahu (or the Israeli people) want? THIS is the solution that is gaining support?
I am (to this moment) still a subscriber to the premium intelligence website Stratfor which, at $349.00 per year, just became too expensive for me to continue.
Obama advisor and Stratfor publisher George Friedman has also just called on Washington to abandon Israel so it can save itself from the Islamic world – in particular, says Friedman, from Iran and Pakistan.
“The United States must quietly distance itself from Israel,” Friedman says in his book, titled “The Next Decade.” “It must strengthen — or at least put an end to weakening — Pakistan.”
Acknowledging that his proposal would be regarded as controversial, Friedman said under Obama and former President George Bush, Washington has been in a confrontation with the Islamic world, which consists of one billion people, as part of the “obsessive” U.S. war against al-Qaeda.
Hmmm. I wonder why anyone would think calling America’s war against al-Qaeda “obsessive” might be controversial? Could it be because al-Qaeda seems obsessed with making war on America?
A U.S. withdrawal of support for Israel, which receives $3 billion a year in American aid, would restore balance in the Middle East, Friedman argued. He said Washington’s recent policy has destabilized the region as well as bolstered Indian dominance of Pakistan.
“Owing largely to recent U.S. policy, those balances are unstable or no longer exist,” Friedman said. “The Israelis are no longer constrained by their neighbors and are now trying to create a new reality on the ground.”
A new reality on the ground? I suppose that is one way of looking at it — provided one is willing to ignore the old reality Israel used to have to work with.
In the old, pre-1993 reality, Israel had captured the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza strip from Jordan, Syria and Egypt, respectively, following a series of wars of aggression launched against them by those countries, together with the rest of the Arab/Islamic world.
In the old reality, while Palestinian terrorism was a problem, an Arab invasion was not, thanks to the buffer zones separating Israel’s heartland from those who would seek to destroy it.
Friedman’s suggested new reality finds fault with Israel for seeking ways to protect its heartland while simultaneously surrendering its buffer zones to appease world opinion.
“The Pakistanis have been badly weakened by the war in Afghanistan, and they are no longer an effective counterbalance to India. And, most important, the Iraqi state has collapsed, leaving the Iranians as the most powerful military force in the Persian Gulf area,” Friedman said.
The book also called on Washington to recognize Iran as the new power in the Middle East. Friedman argued that Washington must arrange a detente with Teheran similar to that with China in the 1970s and the Soviet Union in the 1940s. He said Iran already dominates neighboring Iraq.
“And in the spirit of Roosevelt’s entente with the USSR during World War II, as well as Nixon’s entente with China in the 1970s, the United States will be required to make a distasteful accommodation with Iran, regardless of whether it attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities,” Friedman said. “These steps will demand a more subtle exercise of power than we have seen on the part of recent presidents.”
Friedman said the decline in U.S. support for Israel must mark the first step in a revised American foreign policy. He said this was vital for what he termed the survival of the U.S. empire.
America has an empire? Who knew?
“The United States is a commercial republic, which means that it lives on trade,” Friedman said. “Its tremendous prosperity derives from its own assets and virtues, but it cannot maintain this prosperity and be isolated from the world. Therefore, if the United States intends to retain its size, wealth, and power, the only option is to learn how to manage its disruptive influence maturely.”
The best way to do that is to abandon our closest ally and embrace our most intractable enemies? That’s one of the reasons I am canceling my Stratfor subscription.
If I wanted Obama-speak I can get that for free.
It isn’t in my nature to seek opinions that I already agree with. Nobody could ever learn anything that way. I value opinions, particularly those that cause me to re-examine the opinions I already hold.
But I don’t subscribe to Stratfor for opinions — I subscribe to Stratfor for intelligence information and analysis. Once analysis becomes advocacy — in this case, advocating an abandonment of Israel, it is no longer of any use to me.
Israel doesn’t exist in theory — it exists in fact. It is a nation of men, women and children, not a collection of Zionist Jews bent on world domination. There is no record of Israel attempting to enlarge its borders.
When Israel was attacked in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, it was part of a pan-Arab effort to take what land Israel already had away from them. At the end of each war, Israel found itself in possession of more land than she started with.
So arguing that Israel is expansionist is like a compulsive gambler complaining that the casino has a gambling problem. The Arabs gambled, they lost, and now they want the casino to restore their losses — on the grounds the casino should never have been there in the first place.
As time went on, those demands morphed from demands that the casino restore their losses to a demand for complete ownership of the casino itself.
There has never been a situation quite like this in the history of the world. A nation so reviled that its destruction would be cause for global celebration. But why?
Nobody is quite sure. The Arabs want Israel destroyed because Israel is Jewish.
The Europeans support the Arab cause, because the Arabs are not Jewish. The countries that refuse diplomatic ties with Israel do so because Israel is Jewish.
Those nations that support Israel — like Canada, the US, Australia and so forth –support Israel because it is Jewish.
The nations that support Israel are targets of al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism — because Israel is Jewish.
The mainstream Protestant Christian denominations that favor divestment from Israeli investments as a way of supporting the Palestinian side favor the Palestinians because Israel is Jewish.
Remove the Jewishness from Israel and there is no remaining reason to deny its existence.
Israel is tiny among the nations — tiny in area, tiny in population, and tiny in its territorial aspirations. But it is simultaneously numbered among the most important nations on the face of the planet.
No city on earth receives more attention world-wide than does the city of Jerusalem. But until the Jews claimed it as their capital, it was nothing more than just another town in the Ottoman province of Southern Syria.
Until the Jews returned after 1900 years in exile and suddenly, it isn’t Jerusalem anymore. It is suddenly (and miraculously) the ancient Islamic city of al-Quds. Jerusalem is what the Zionists renamed it. Or something.
The Bible says that as we move closer to the end of this age, the rest of the world will move further away from Israel until Israel stands completely alone and friendless.
It isn’t until Israel has nowhere else to turn that God turns His attention back Israel’s national redemption.
“And I will sanctify My great Name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.” (Ezekiel 36:23)
“So the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward.”(Ezekiel 39:22)
“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John 16:2)
So it is unsurprising, from the perspective of Scripture, that the call for America to abandon Israel to the tender mercies of the Arab world is growing louder.
Israel is a visible reminder that the God of Heaven keeps His promises. The god of this world hates that.
If God keeps His promises to Israel, then it means God is just as faithful to keep His promises to His Church. That is something the enemy would prefer to keep a secret.
By whatever means necessary.