An Editorial from the May 1999 issue of THE MACCABEAN
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Attaches Strings to Israeli Iron Dome Funds
Washington Seeks Rights to Short-Range Interceptor System
Apr. 30, 2012 - 10:39AM By BARBARA OPALL-ROME
TEL AVIV — Defense and industry leaders here are discovering that even in a
U.S. election year — when bipartisan and bicameral support for Israel is at
its peak — some American gift packages still come tied with strings.
In exchange for $680 million for Israel’s Iron Dome short-range rocket
defense system, Washington wants “appropriate rights” to the
Israeli-developed technology and U.S.-based coproduction of the system’s
high-speed intercepting missiles.
According to language included in the House Armed Services strategic forces
subcommittee’s markup for the 2013 defense authorization bill, Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta may provide up to $680 million to Israel for Iron
Dome procurement over the next 29 months.
The proposed funding, when combined with the $205 million authorized and
appropriated under 2011 legislation, brings U.S. taxpayer investment in the
operationally proven Israeli system to nearly $900 million. “Yet the United
States has no rights to the technology involved,” the committee noted.
As a means of leveraging this investment, House authorizers require the
director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to establish a joint
Iron Dome program office to formalize long-term cooperation.
“The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing
additional funds on Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights
to this technology, as is consistent with prior U.S.-Israel missile defenses
cooperation,” according to the panel’s authorization bill markup.
House authorizers also want MDA “to explore any opportunity to enter into
co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the
significant U.S. investment in this system.”
In interviews here and in Washington, government sources say the Pentagon is
pushing for similar caveats in markups to come from Senate authorizers as
well as appropriators from both houses of Congress. The House defense
appropriations markup is expected in the first half of May while the Senate
version is expected at the end of June.
Israel has deployed three Iron Dome batteries and a fourth is in final
stages of acceptance testing with the Israel Air Force’s Air Defense
Command. The first two batteries were funded by Israel’s shekel-based
defense budget while the $205 million appropriated by Congress last year
were used to fund the third and fourth batteries as well as two additional
batteries now being produced by an Israeli industrial team led by
state-owned Rafael.
Israeli sources say the proposed $680 million in additional funding will
cover another four complete Iron Dome batteries, which include an
Eltamultimission radar, Iron Dome launchers, Tamir interceptors and the
system’s command-and-control unit.
In an Israeli Independence Day address on April 26, Defense Minister Ehud
Barak raised “the initiative of the Pentagon, with the approval of the White
House and with bipartisan support in Congress, to legislate additional aid
to enable Israel to deploy 10 batteries and thousands of interceptors of the
Iron Dome.”
Barak did not make reference to the stings that Washington is attaching to
its support of Iron Dome, a system which he has repeatedly referred to as
“the fruit of Israel’s indigenous defense industry.”
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
Posts
