Thursday, 12 March 2009

An Editorial May 1999

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND ISRAEL

A Maccabean Perspective

by Bernard J. Shapiro

 

This article is quite critical of American Foreign Policy, therefore, I would like to say a few positive things up front. The American people when properly polled come out consistently in support of Israel. There are at least 50 million Evangelical Christians who are friends and dedicated supporters of Israel. Many of America's presidents have bucked the US State Department to help Israel with arms and money. The US Congress and Senate have consistently been friends of Israel. Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed his love of Israel many times. My own grandfather, for whom the Freeman Center was named, expressed his love of America upon his arrival on our shores:

 

"But what a change in life upon arriving in America - Free America. Here I suddenly found myself unbridled, the air free, no stifling, atmosphere - I could give free expression to the cravings of my soul! Life began to have a different meaning. What a blessing to have free assemblage, free speech free press! Can an American who has always enjoyed these blessings appreciate what it means to one who was deprived of them until manhood?"

 

Unfortunately there are institutions in America that don't love Israel as much as most of us do. Israel's relations with America go back even before statehood in 1948. During the critical years of WWII, the Zionist community of both America and Israel appealed to President Franklin Roosevelt to take action to stop the Holocaust. They were rebuffed at every turn. It was apparent that neither America nor any of its allies were very interested in saving Jewish lives. England was the most persuasive when arguing that the Jews saved would want to go to Palestine. This would anger the Arabs and should be avoided at all cost. It is true that European Jewry would have been a vast reservoir of new citizens for the emerging State of Israel. Their sheer numbers would have eliminated the Arab demographic problem in the new State. American policy came down solidly on the side of dead Jews as opposed to live Jews.

 

When Israel declared its independence in 1948, we were all pleased that the American president, Harry S. Truman, made America the first nation in the world to recognize the Jewish State. Yet even here there was a dark side to American Foreign Policy. The State Department had argued in vain against the recognition of Israel. When they didn't succeed at that they successfully placed an embargo of arms to Middle Eastern States. Seemingly neutral it only affected Israel since the British and French were arming the Arabs. So we have the spectacle of American recognition of Israel's independence while at the same time refusing the arms it needed to survive, to defend their lives.

 

Following Israel's Sinai Campaign in 1956, Eisenhower and Dulles forced Israel to withdraw with little political gain. Two "benefits" appeared to be: a UN Force in Sinai to guarantee free passage for Israel in the Gulf of Eilat; and an American promise to guarantee such free passage. In 1967 the UN Force disappeared, as did the American promise, which the State Department claimed they could not verify.

 

In the period since 1967, the US State Department has devoted an excessive amount of time developing and promoting plans to force Israeli withdrawal to the 'suicide' borders of pre-1967. With amazing regularity, the State Department has failed to be honest about violations of the agreements it has negotiated between the Arabs and Israelis. The US has been blind to Arab violations from the failure to see missile movements in Egypt (1970-76) to the failure to see Palestinian violations of the Oslo and Wye Agreements. This US blindness has always been one way. The Israelis are subjected to constant misinterpretations of agreements. For example, never having agreed to a freeze in Jewish building, US spy satellites are active daily counting houses in YESHA. And then publicly rebuking Israel for a normal activity of a sovereign country.

 

In order to pressure Israel, stories appear on a regular basis claiming that Israel is transferring American technology to third parties. In every case they are proven false, but the constant repetition is meant to weaken Israel diplomatically. The State Department has orchestrated a media campaign to damage Israel's reputation in general and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. A few examples:

 

1. Netanyahu is the "hardline" PM of Israel while other world leaders are Statesman. Arafat is a 'leader'

2. Ethnic cleansing is bad in Kosovo but the ethnic cleansing of Jews from YESHA is good

3. All disputed land in YESHA 'belongs' to Arabs even when Israel has clear title

4. All foreign capitals are recognized 'except Jerusalem'

5. Israeli soldiers defending themselves from attack have been treated by the media as the 'bad guy'

6. Rock throwers who can crush you skull have been treated as 'demonstrators or protesters' by the media

7. Jewish villages are 'settlements' and 'illegitimate' while Arab villages are all considered legitimate

 

The list could on but now we must say something that should have been said years ago. It is very important for Israel to disengage from its close embrace with American diplomacy. It should be obvious to all that American and Israeli interests differ markedly in relation to the negotiations with the Palestinians. America has by its own admission ceased to be either pro-Israel or a neutral mediator (the Americans claim to be 'even-handed').

 

American policy in the final analysis will leave Israel with indefensible borders and an irredentist Palestinian neighbor yearning for all the land "from the river to the sea." Then, of course, they will also want Jordan.

Much more can be gained for Israel by negotiating directly with the Arabs. This used to be Israeli policy. In reality, Arafat has ceased negotiating with Israel and now is negotiating only with Washington..

 

It may be necessary to give up American aid dollars and possibly weapons to break out of the current US embrace. It will certainly be difficult, but in the end, there will exist a truly free and sovereign Israel. The alternative is to learn nothing from history: placing Israel's destiny in America's hands as was done during WWII. America won the war, but 90% of Europe's Jews were already dead. I would prefer Israel to survive.

.....Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor

 
 
 
 
 

Sovereignty in Israel

Adar 15, 5769, 11 March 09 12:55
by Yoel Meltzer
 
(IsraelNN.com) Commenting on the role the sovereign nation state plays in the Western world vis-a-vis its role in the Islamic world, Samuel P. Huntington states: "The structure of political loyalty among Arabs and among Muslims generally has been the opposite of that in the modern West. For the latter the nation state has been the apex of political loyalty." He then adds, "In addition, the idea of sovereign nation states is incompatible with belief in the sovereignty of Allah and the primacy of the ummah." (Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order, pp. 174-175)
Thus, while in the West the concept of the sovereign nation state has enormous importance, yet the idea of loyalty or belonging to a larger Pan-Anglo western nation has no relevance, in the Islamic world the situation is exactly the opposite.
 
Following this brief analysis of the West and Islam, it is rather interesting to consider the Jewish perspective. For just as in the case of the Jewish calendar, which is a combination of the lunar (used in Islam) and the solar (used in Christianity), so too here. In other words, for the Jewish people, like in Islam, there is the concept of the broader nation, am Yisrael, while at the same time, like in the West, there is significance to the sovereign nation state, the Jewish state of Israel. Since much has already been written about the problems facing the Jewish nation - specifically the divisions within Israeli society as well as Israel's relations vis-a-vis Jews living outside of Israel - I would like to focus here on the concept of the sovereign nation state. Specifically: How much sovereignty does Israel really have on a political level, and how is sovereignty perceived amongst the Israeli populace?
 
On the national political level, Israel certainly has some degree of sovereignty. Unlike the situation 2,000 years ago, when Israel was physically living under Roman rule, today Israel has its own state institutions such as a parliament, court system, army, etc. Moreover, Israel maintains diplomatic, cultural and economic relations with countries throughout the world, participates in a variety of international forums, is a member of the United Nations, and more. However, despite the outer appearance of full sovereignty, the last 15-20 years have told another story.
 
In a progressively more blatant manner, the upper echelon of Israel's political leaders have more or less said, both in words and in actions, that Israel must do as America says, regardless of whether or not this action is good for the Jewish state. Be it in reaction to Palestinian acts of terror, the nature and length of wars in Lebanon and Gaza, the sale of military equipment to China, etc., the deciding factor is whether or not we have the 'green light' from America. Similarly, the near consensus to work towards the creation of a Palestinian state, the 'two-state solution', is sheepishly moved forward with hardly a dissenting voice, despite the obvious dangers to all, simply because this is what America wants.
 
Apparently for many reasons, chief among them most likely economic and political, Israel's leadership is hesitant, if not frightened, to go against the will of America. They simply fear the consequence of going against a superpower, even one which is relatively losing it dominance compared to other powers in the world. Nonetheless, and despite whatever rationalizations they might have, many of which might be justifiable for various reasons, their open display of unabashed adherence to the demands of American leadership questions the whole notion of our true political sovereignty.
 
Another example that brought this question to the forefront was witnessed in the recent elections. Rather than seriously addressing the Israeli public about real issues and problems, the leading candidates invested a lot of time trying to prove who would work better with President Barack Obama. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with having good relations with America and its president; however, when this becomes a central issue in Israeli national elections, then certainly our whole status as a sovereign nation state becomes rather suspect.
 
Regarding the Israeli public, since their consciousness and mindset is heavily influenced by the words and actions of the ruling political establishment, it should come as no surprise as to how they feel. Although many will initially express statements and offer suggestions that appear to be more beneficial to the Jewish state than those that are heard from the political leadership, nonetheless they'll frequently end such discussions by saying that "America will not allow us to do such and such". For, similar to the political leaders, they can't imagine that we could actually do something which is in our best national interest without receiving the 'green light' from America. Once again, none of this is a surprise, since the Israeli public does not live in a vacuum. They are heavily influenced by the country's leadership, as well as by the messages and ideas that are continuously transmitted to them by way of the heavily biased media.
 
Clearly then, according to most Israelis, the concept of having true political sovereignty is either considered unrealistic or is simply not thought about at all. Perhaps the time has come for Israel to start thinking about this concept in a more serious manner. The world is changing and America's status as the lone superpower is becoming reduced; a change that will surely affect America's relations with many countries in the world, including Israel. Moreover, as America is forced to pursue policies in this part of the world that are in its best interest in order to save its teetering economic and political empire, it is safe to assume that some of these policies will be detrimental to Israel. Obviously, America is not to blame since America must, and rightly so, worry first and foremost about the needs of America. That's the role of any truly sovereign state.
 
The point here is not that Israel should 'switch allegiance' to another world power, be it Russia or China, but rather it should start taking notice of changing events and start looking inward. Such dependency on, and faithful compliance with, another country, no matter what the policies of that country may be regarding Israel, will not help Israel to develop the internal strength that it so badly needs in order to deal with the host of complex issues and problems that it faces. Moreover, although it might be true that at this particular moment in time Israel cannot simply act as a 100% truly sovereign state and only do what is in its best interest, regardless of what the rest of the world might say, nonetheless Israel needs to start thinking in this direction. Changes in the physical realm are frequently preceded by, and are a direct result of, changes in the way one thinks, be it as an individual or as a nation. Finally, if Israel ever truly desires to fulfill its unique role in the world, then it will have no choice but to start thinking about itself differently, and to realize why true sovereignty is in fact needed in order to fulfill this role.
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
Subscribe to the free Daily Israel Report - israelnn.com/subscribe