Many of you know Dr. Anbar. His article is appearing in today’s issue of “The Jerusalem Connection International. You can send any comments to him (if you like with a cc to me), see address below, but he will not reply until at least May 12th.
Elected US presidents are presidents of the US, not of Israel
This trivial statement seems to elude many Americans, especially many American Jews.
Having grown up in pre-1948 Israel as a member of the national underground and having experienced the 1947 Arab siege of Jerusalem, before joining the fledgling IAF in 1948. Then living for half of my life as a naturalized US citizen, gives me a unique historical perspective.
Israel is the ancient homeland of the 3300 year-old Jewish nation, over which it lost sovereignty several times during its long history. The US is the homeland of the 222 year-old sovereign American nation. Each of these two nations tries to maintain its independence and sovereignty. Each has its distinct national interests, though almost half of the Jewish nation live in the US as its citizens.
Unless it meets it own national interests, the US has no reason to maintain the survival of Israel as a Jewish sovereign state. This is why President Truman recognized Israel’s independence only de-facto on May 15th 1948, assuming it will be defeated in less than a month. Expecting its demise, Truman imposed on Israel an arms embargo while it was struggling for survival.
On the other hand, because of its own national interests, the USSR recognized Israel de-jure on May 16th and started to provide it with weapons vital for its continued existence. Israel would not have survived in 1948 if not for the shipments of arms from the Soviet Bloc, not because Stalin loved Jews but because Russia hoped that Israel will become a base for Soviet expansion in the Middle East.
President Truman did not hate Jews, like President Franklin Roosevelt before him (remember FDR’s inhumane treatment of the S.S. Saint Louis refugees, which he condemned to death by returning them from Miami to Hamburg, or his refusal to ransom live Jews for trucks, and to stop the Nazi death machine in Auschwitz, knowing of it in since 1941). Truman simply knew that there are many more Muslim Arabs in the world than Jews. He did what he considered was in the best national interest of the US.
President Eisenhower saved Egypt from a catastrophic defeat by his allies - GB, France and Israel, so as to gain favor with the Arabs. If not for Eisenhower, the Near East would never have developed its current hostile anti-Western behavior for fear of a united West. Moreover, Eisenhower’s intervention did dot prevent Egypt from joining the Soviets, until its defeat by Israel in 1967. In other words, Eisenhower’s pro-Arab policy backfired. Eisenhower did not do this because he loved Arabs more than Jews, but because he thought that this was in the best interest of the US.
President Nixon did not love Jews, as documented in his diaries, but he did support Israel as an American strategic ally in the Cold war. President Reagan had certainly warmer feelings toward Jews than President Carter, his predecessor, but he did not need to weigh the national interests of the US against those of Israel.
We must remember that the religious-political goal of all Muslims, not just Iran, is to wipe Israel off the map, one way or the other. In view of this we must understand the policies of President George Bush the elder, who showed Israel a cold shoulder so as to maintain his good relationships with the Saudi rulers. This he believed was in the best interest of the US.
President Clinton may have cared about the entire Arab world, so he made Yasser Arafat, the notorious arch-terrorist, the most welcome guest in the White House. Clinton probably despised Arafat but pursued a policy that he perceived to be in the best national interest of the US.
President GW Bush may have admired the achievements of the Jewish state, which by the end of the Cold War in 1991 lost part of its strategic value to the US; therefore, he succumbed to Arab pressure to create a new Judenrein Arab state west of the River Jordan. GWB must have known, especially after the Gaza experience, that creation of this non-viable Arab “state” is just a stage in the eventual liquidation of Israel by the Muslims.
Still, I do not fault President Bush. Like President Truman before him, GWB realized that there are so many more Muslims who hate Israel because of their misojudaic religion (religion is not up for negotiation or compromise) than there are Jews. Moreover, Islamic political power has tripled since 1948 and the Muslims have taken full control of the UN. Consequently, like other US presidents before him, GWB acted in the best national interest of the US as he perceived these to be.
This brings us to President Obama who is now trying his best to deal with the Islamic world not from a position of strength but of humility. For him the elimination of Israel, which is so despised by Muslims, is a small price to pay to gain Islamic sympathies.
Here I strongly disagree with President Obama’s approach since the US will never gain the sympathy or even tolerance of the Muslims, who are bound by their religion to impose it, including its ethics and lifestyle, on all humanity. President Obama, who must be familiar with Islam more than the average American, because of his upbringing in Indonesia, seems to overlook the intrinsic conflict between the political/ideological aspirations of Islam and those of the US.
However, President Obama, was elected by a substantial majority of Americans, including 78% of American Jews, and has a mandate to conduct American economy and social structure according to his ideology. The same is true of his foreign policy, which may lead to the demise of the State of Israel. He does this not because he hates Jews, who seem to love him, but because this is what he feels is best for the US. He was elected president of this country and not of Israel.
President Obama seems to overlook that the religion-driven unmitigated political goal of Islam is world supremacy. The fall of Israel, especially of Jerusalem, into Islamic hands will give a tremendous boost to radical Islam, and embolden it to attempt to subjugate the US, the Great Satan. The Muslims will interpret the conquest of Jerusalem as a divine proof of the superiority of Islam over Judaism and Christianity. This is the eminent danger for Western civilization inherent in Obama’s current Middle East policies.
They say that the road to hell is paved with noble intentions. This may be true.
Michael Anbar Ph.D.
To appear in the May 1st issue of “The Jerusalem Connection International.”
Posts
