As the Obama administration begins its engagement with the Netanyahu/Lieberman government, The Economist states the obvious – the new Israeli government is not an ally in Obama's vision for the Middle East. The magazine points out that Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank directly contradicts US policy in the region and they believe the US should cut aid to Israel accordingly. From the article "Israel's new government: Change your tune":
Until now, Barack Obama has been oddly shy of embroilment, partly
because of the lack of a solid Israeli government. That excuse no
longer holds. He and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, have
declared that securing two states, of Israel and Palestine, must be the
sole basis of a deal. America cannot give unstinting support to an
Israeli government that says it is resiling from the fundamental
principle of two states and will continue to colonise the West Bank. If
Mr Netanyahu does not change course, Mr Obama should reduce aid to
Israel.
The current game setup in the Mideast is a triad in the big picture.
Israel
Sunni Arab states (Arab League)
Iran
Alliances form up as two against one, with the one being the most vulnerable so long as those alliances hold up. So for example, currently the Sunni Islamic world fears and opposes Iran almost more than they oppose Israel.
Iran and the militant organizations want to shift that to Sunni and Iran allying in opposition to Israel, thereby distracting from the conflicts between the Shia and Sunni Islamic world.
I can't imagine a condition that would put Iran and Israel in some alliance. The only one in recent history was the opposition to Baathist Iraq.
As Trita Parsi has referred, the Persian world and the Israeli/western have historically had more in common in values, associations, than they do now.
The Islamic fundamentalism is a permanent obstacle to any change in that prospect.
The best of all worlds would be mutual acceptance, but that is only possible where none are seeking regional dominance on any basis.
The region's role will change radically within the next 20 years or so, when oil supply and accessibility begins to peak, after the west, China and others adopt sustainable energy as norm, and water becomes the most prominent scarce commodity.
For what its worth, the Persian Gulf has access to each of those, solar and wind in abundance, underground water (in the same wells as oil).
Its main customers though would be urban and close to home, not globally transportable. In a word, Israel.
This sounds good at first glance, but one must realize that the familiar '3 billion per year' is just the tip of the iceberg of US subsidies. See The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy for a detailed discussion. Colonization of the rest of Palestine is the PRIMARY objective of extremist Zionists. The kind of cuts that would make Lieberman, Netanyahu, et al notice would have Israeli-occupied Congress baying in the streets (by themselves lol) for President Obama's blood. This would amplify the awakening process of the American public, and is much to be desired. Unfortunately, it would also prove distracting, perhaps fatally so, to Pres. Obama's efforts to lead a stabilization of the American and global economies with consequent curtailment of poverty-induced extremism. If Pres. Obama throws down the gauntlet, colonial Zionists in Congress, Senator Schumer and many others, will have to choose between America and Israel, and they will not choose America.
To take up where Colin left off yeah, not that this Economist editorial isn't thinking in the right direction but it has to make you smile to think through the "process" that it still envisions:
I mean, after all okay, we cut some aid now, but the idea then is that if Israel comes around it'll be restored, and what country in the world is going to really abide by agreements it made at the point of a gun really if it doesn't have to? And what enforcement mechanism is going to be put in place that's going to be honored by both sides? And doesn't it all mean that even if you get a deal at the point of an aid cut-off that you then have put yourself on the bad end of an argument that you have a moral responsibility to continue to supply that aid forever and ever?
There's just so many ways for any party to evade almost any agreements, much less complex ones. Not to pick on Israel because I don't think it would act any differently than any other country pushed into something at the point of a gun, but look just at how much it has expanded its settlements over the years despite any number of promises not to do so. And how did it do so? Oh, by saying the settlements over *there* weren't included in the promise, or by saying "of course we didn't mean the *natural* growth of existing settlements would be halted, or by saying "oh gee, this settlement was *always* this big, we just filled in the outline," and blah blah blah.
America should get out of this mess in toto. No aid for either side. We got no dog in that fight whatsoever. And to be involved means to embrace a tar baby that's stuck us good in the past and can only stick us more in the future.
Richard,
The region's role will change radically within the next 20 years or so
20 years? Take the zero off. Netanyahu and Lieberman are going to put their foot on Obama's jugular this year. They're counting on the human menorah around him to light their ambitions to torch Iran…very much still on the table.
The problem is Americans are really fed up with the anti-semitism accusations for anything that comes near the letters ISRAEL. Fed up in the sense that they wont care one iota if its hurled one more time. It's a meaningless label now, an irritant, like having someone yank the bandaid off your wrist over and over and over again. Sixty fucking years of it is enough. Because the American people are going to turn on Israel for sucking $3 billion/year out of our treasury. For weapons, no less. When our military needs health care, and our citizens need their tax dollars staying here.
Frick and Frack running Israel dont have a clue. They're not picking up the change in the wind because they think the power in the USA is the eastern corridor along with the do-or-die chorus in the Bronx and Palm Beach. They think those seven candles installed in the WH are all they need to ram their way through. But it aint going to happen. Avrum Burg was right.
And nobody's in the mood to put up with a parasitic and paranoid country threatening WWIII.
Just cut off the aid period.
It will be painful for America as well as Israel because this ponzi scheme that is Israel will crash without it and the US will have to write off all those US loans as well as make good on defaulted Israeli bonds and many US pension funds will also take a hit on those defaulted bonds.
But it has to be done…it has to end. The myth that the US owes Jews anything has to be exposed for the ridiculous propaganda it is. England,Italy, France, Poland, none of the European countries except Germany pays the Jews anything on the holocaust extortion racket. Aid to Israel has been Jewish 'racket' in the US from the begining and that's all it is..a racket.
To end this aid, that was manufactured by their political lobbying, we have to go after the US politicans …so let's go get them.
Clean out congress.
America should get out of this mess in toto. No aid for either side. Amen But because we've armed Israel to the teeth we ought to do the same for the Palestinian. Mutually assured destruction worked between the Soviets and us.
If Americans had to choose between their support of Israel and their jobs, I know which one would go.
That is what Obama should tell the US public, so that anyone opposing the cutting off of aid can be exposed for what he/she really is – a traitor.
It's amazing that even though the evidence of the Jewish/Israeli racket is available to anyone who wants to look that no one ever ask the question…
'Why do we give 3 billion in military aid to Israel when Israel 'sells/exports' 4 billion in arms to other countries very year? Hummmm…?
American taxpayers give them 3 billion for weapons purchases because they claim they are 'under threat" from the Palestines, or Iran or Lebanon or the Girl Scouts..we even resupply free of charge their weapons depots every time they attack someone like after their Lebanon foray…and they SELL FOUR BILLION, A BILLION MORE THAN THEY SPEND BUYING US ARMS for the arms they claim they so desperately need? They sell MORE than they buy? Who can forget their sale to China of US developed aircraft technology or their sale of weapons to the Ivory coast in violation of the UN ban?
A few facts from the FAS arms data base:
Israeli arms exports stood at USD 4.2 billion in 2006.
U.S. journal Defense News reported that Israel's exports account for 10 percent of global arms sales.
In 2007 Israel has moved up to fourth place on the list of the world's largest weapons exporters.
US arms industry now 'compete' with Israel for overseas arms sales and the US taxpayers give Israel 3 billion?
DOES ANYONE SEE THE RACKET GOING ON HERE? The same racket that gives Israel US loans then gives them another loan to make payments on the first loan, then another loan to make payments on the second loan and ad infini.
Israel and the Jewish lobying in the US is nothing but a racket, an organized crime group,an political extortion group and ponzi scheme.
You can't just 'cut back' on a racket, a criminal enterprise, a con game, you have to end it once and for all.
This little article is a clue not to go to The Economist for economic advice.
@ Witty
"The best of all worlds would be mutual acceptance, but that is only possible where none are seeking regional dominance on any basis."
Precisely why the US should cut off all aid to Israel. As one commenter suggests above, given all we have given Israel, that giant blank check over so many years, we might divert at least half of it to the Palestinians, the other half to help our working poor at home, growing by the thousands daily.
America should get out of this mess in toto. No aid for either side. Amen But because we've armed Israel to the teeth we ought to do the same for the Palestinian.
Posted by: Laurie | April 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Please do so. You may rest assured that the armed-to-the-teeth palestinians will suffer the same fate as the previously armed-to-the-teeth Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians.
So arm them, I beg you.
The best of all worlds would be giving all the weapons and aid to the Palestinians so they could defeat the aggressor and live their lives free of Israeli terror and criminality.
Apparently there are Israelis who wouldn't mind not receiving aid, because they believe they've been hindered by others' interests when it comes to dealing with terrorists.
So maybe the Economist will get its wish.
The jury is not 100% out on this new government coalition anyway. Let's see how they plan to deal with the West Bank.
Of course, rigid minded idealogues will howl at that moon when they read that (and chihuahuas will yip-yip in soprano). But who cares about them? :-)
Posted by: Chris Berel | April 15, 2009 at 08:38 PM – How quickly you've forgotten your experience in Lebanon 2006.
@ Witty
I agree with your assessment of the region's 3 players–but I am confused by your last sentence. What does it mean? Do you mean Israel has no oil, and with ever-growing foreign demand to use less oil, the interests of outsiders, e.g., the USA & Europe, will mean more support for Israel, or less? And with Israel also being most in need of water, the next key commodity in the area, Israel
will become more desperate for outside support? Or the reverse? And if so, why?
Berel is Israeli macho man–easy pose, given he lives apparently in the USA. Why hasn't he moved to Israel and joined a settlement?
If the Israelis were in the Pal shoes, they would have gone shuffling to their demise long ago.
You can be sure Berel was never part of the USA military, nor will he ever be part of the IDF.
Anyone what Berel in the foxhole next to him? A number of commenters posed the same question, for good reason. We can all spot a Walter Mitty posing as GI or IDF Joe.
Posted by: Chris Berel | April 15, 2009 at 08:38 PM – How quickly you've forgotten your experience in Lebanon 2006.
Posted by: Laurie | April 16, 2009 at 08:20 AM
Not so. The Lebonese people were not at war with Israel, only a terrorist group, hezbullah was involved, with little civillian support. Therefore israels arms are tied by a morality that doesn't seem to exist on the Arab side.
With the palestinian people armed to the teeth and warring with israel, Israel would be morally allowed to destroy them.