-
STATE OF THE UNION
Grading The President’s Speech
-
GOP
The Sexual Subculture Of War In Politics
-
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Trade And Job Creation
Posted By David Rothkopf
Friday, July 17, 2009 - 7:19 PM
Share
Throughout the political campaign Barack Obama argued that he was a staunch friend of Israel. In Cairo, in his ground-breaking speech to the Islamic world, he asserted America was committed to the security of Israel. Wherever he goes he says he is committed to upholding America's long history of supporting the Jewish state.
So how come a Jerusalem Post poll conducted late last month says only six percent of Israelis think the Obama administration is pro-Israel, down from almost five times that in the early weeks of the administration? This is such a low number that it clearly cuts across all parties, demographic and social groups within Israel. It effectively says that something that Obama has done in his first six months in office has convinced virtually all the Israeli people (at least to the extent the poll is truly representative of the people of Israel) that he's not what he said he was.
Could it be that they believe the Obama Administration is likely to take a harder line with Israel on freezing settlements than it is with Iran to stop its nuclear program?
Yes.
What's more, they're right.
Not coincidentally, the shift in Israeli public opinion corresponds with a shift in U.S. public opinion. A mid-June Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll indicated that only 46 percent of Americans think Israel is committed to peace, down 20 percent from the level just before Obama took office. The poll also found that only 44 percent of those questioned thought the U.S. should support Israel, down from 71 percent a year ago. Less than half those polled called themselves supporters of Israel down from over two-thirds before the election. (For more on how some in Washington's policy community are becoming emboldened in this respect, see Jeffrey Goldberg's piece on the outrageous behavior of Human Rights Watch in Saudi Arabia. It'll give you a sharp sense of where the left is on this.)
A related problem for the Israelis is that some senior American military officials seem to discount the idea of the "existential" threat Prime Minister Netanyahu and others assert would be created by the continued development of Iran's nuclear program. They feel that America offers sufficient deterrent to keep Iran in check. Further, U.S. political and military leaders argue that it would take months of bombing to eliminate the Iranian program, an option not available to Israel. This view neglects to take into account the fact that Israel might not act to eliminate Iran's efforts, just to deter them. In fact, it seems to be forgotten that when Israel bombed the Osirak reactor in Iraq, the objective was simply to set back Iraqi efforts by a year (although the real effective turned out to be many times greater). Setting the Iranians back a year could be done with actions well within the capabilities of Israel.
Clearly this is a relationship in flux at a time when the stakes are high all around. And while there are no doubt many in the U.S. (and in the FP audience) who welcome the apparent changes, be careful what you wish for. One does not achieve "balance" in the U.S.-Israel relationship by off-setting the perceived "pro-Israel" slant of the past with a broadly "anti-Israel" stance today. Indeed, as any realist will tell you, we don't need balance for balance's sake. We need what will work to advance U.S. national interests.
Despite the endless and baseless propaganda to the contrary, getting tough with the Israelis on settlements or on other elements of the Israel-Palestine agenda will actually do precious little to address our greater concerns in the region while accepting a nuclear-capable Iran because we don't have the will to stop them from getting will damage U.S. interests in great and lasting ways.That's not to say we shouldn't seek to actively advance a two-state solution for the Israelis and the Palestinians. It doesn't say we should agree with Israel on everything and we shouldn't pressure for change where we disagree. But as a potentially unprecedented rift looms and as a shift in the politics of the relationship seems to be taking place, it's probably worth taking a deep breath and asking ourselves if we have fully thought through the consequences of what might come next.
The United States is still an ally of Israel, that fact cannot be denied. However the United States and its citizenry seem to be engaged in a review of exactly what kind of an ally we are. Previously it could be seen simply as standing by a democracy against a sea of authoritarian states while remembering the Holocaust. In recent years however Americans seem to see it in terms of an ally that is contributing to the chaotic and bloody situation for poor reasons. I do not presume to state what the Israeli Jewish community may feel (as opposed to presuming what the Israeli Arab community may feel) but I imagine that they see the recent demands for an end to the settlements and a focus on negotiations with Iran to be a betrayal of that alliance.
They will reject America because they will never know when America will decide to attack them and practically take over their country. America is a proud country and needs to lower the pride for other countries to accept them as allies.
They will reject America because they will never know when America will decide to attack them and practically take over their country. America is a proud country and needs to lower the pride for other countries to accept them as allies.
I don't understand why Obama's policy is seen as such a massive shift. It's clear that poor Israeli opinion of Obama has become an obstacle. But is there really a moral argument to be made for the settlements? Plus, all he's asking for is a freeze. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for people who have to move back to a more developed section of their own country when they grow up (rather than living next door to their parents) because the US is finally living up to it's official pronouncements. I've never been to Israel, but I can't imagine it takes more than 2-3 hours to drive from one end to the other. The right wing in Israel is not likely to approve a peace plan anyways, and they control the country, so he might as well know what they're willing to sacrifice now rather than flailing around for a few years only to be denuded by them--all the while alienating the Arabs. You could say that he needs to capture the Israeli public's goodwill, but they are so distrustful (I would be too if I lived in an area of such tit-for-tat military conflict) that he had no chance with them once he decided to push for a fairer backdrop for negotiations. And to compare our treatment of Iran and Israel is absurd. Obama recognized a timetable for talks, as has Hillary. The most they have threatened is sanctions on things like oil. It's said that would be pretty crippling, even though Iran planning to get refining help from China. If this comes down to an argument over bombing Iran or not, I think you miss the point. If we bomb their nuclear facilities, they aren't going to lay down like Iraq and Syria did. Because they don't have to. Robert Gates apparently believes that they would just use such a bombing as a pretext for building a stockpile of weapons. Their new "moderate" political bloc that has everyone excited will in all likelihood be marginalized and defeated. All hopes of any peaceful internal changes in Iran (I think most people agree that non-peaceful internal changes aren't likely to be won by the people without weapons). Are you worried about inflation now? How about when Iran starts its own state-sponsored pirate initiative in the Persian gulf? I'm sorry that Israel is uncomfortable with the idea, but deterrents are all that we can rely on now that nuclear weapons technology has spread. The people in Los Angeles will agree in a few years when Kim gets the Taepodong to fly. The genie got out of the bottle, and the reality is that we are unwilling to bomb other countries that have the capability to inflict pain on us. The Chinese were regarded as genocidal maniacs, and we tolerated their nuclear status. Not only that, we signed the NPT with them. We decided to live with this during the Korean War when we dispatched MacArthur. If Israel has a problem with, they can take it into their own hands and face the consequences of American public opinion when oil shoots back to 150 a barrel (at least) in the ensuing war and an unknowable number of Americans is killed in Iraq in retaliation. If we bomb them now, we will guarantee they build nukes, unless we demolish the country somehow. We can't start a war right now without knowing positively that the we aren't actually encouraging military nuclear capability and that they are in the process of building weapons. Obviously, there are extreme elements in that regime, Ahmadinejad most likely included, who would like to use the bomb as a threat if not more. Until we know who controls those weapons, we shouldn't jump to conclusions about their intent. Israel accomplished almost nothing in its last two wars. Same for America. A third isn't likely to be any more successful, or predictable, for either side.
It's just going to get worse. Have you spent much time on college campuses lately? I'm only a few years from my JD, and the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel sentiments by the vast majority of activist students and professors were glaring. The silly analysis offered by the poster A Balanced View above is standard now on most college campuses.
Most of the world share this "silly analyisis."
Why one has to be labelled as an "activist" to share the "silly analysis". Why one has to be necessarily identified as pro-Palestinian and/or anti-Israel, or, worse, anti-semite?
How about being pro-USA and ask ourselves how is the US national interest concretely served by intervening in Iran? Please, let's not use the generic and shallow argument of assisting a "friend". In foreign policy there are no friends, only common interests.
In spite of what Israel would have us believe, Iran is a regional issue and Israel's (real or perceived) problem. The Iranian regime knows too well that if a nuclear device is used anywhere in the world and can be traced back to them, they and Iran are finished. These people are very skilled politicians and negotiators as continuosly demonstrated on the international stage, in spite of being totally isolated. They have skillfully leveraged Israel's concerns to gain growing importance. I guess we have to thank Israel's policies for making Iran important.
About the "silly analysis" .... Let's not forget that before the Iraq war, a lot of people had "silly" opinions on invading Iraq. I guess the intelligent opinions weren't that intelligent after all.
Hopefully, history will have tought us something.
to blue3326 re: "... going to get worse."
Frankly I had toyed with the idea of a column contrasting the comment from A Balanced View with David Rothkopf's piece because ABV's comment is far more on target and in tune with reality.
The illegal colonies that Israel has installed just keep growing. They are the most glaring aspect of the occupation because they represent the theft of Palestinian land by yards per day.
President Obama has UN resolutions and international law as well as long-standing US policy behind his clear stance on the "settlements."
Achieving a complete halt to the growth and continuation of the illegal "settlements" is an absolutely necessary component for moving towards a realistic final peace deal in line with the Arab Peace Initiative; which is quite frankly, Israel's best and likely last chance to achieve real peace and fully join the family of nations.
You're hearing these things at college because they are true.
What you call a "silly analysis" is actually common sense.
There are no legitimate arguments anymore for the occupation, annexation and oppression of people and land for more than 60 years. If you'd like to know why, it's because the religious right hold far less sway in this country anymore. They lost all credibility with their blind support for Bush/Cheney, who were more pro-Israel than they were pro-US.
The bible-thumping right-wing got drummed out of power in the US, and we certainly aren't going to support a torah-thumping right-wing in Israel.
The left wing supports the oppressed, not the oppressors. I don't consider myself left-wing, but there comes a point when you just have to say "what the hell?" The Palestinians are human beings, for god's sake, and Israel denies them crayons? Israel denies them the cement to rebuild their homes? They bulldoze their homes and cut them off from their farms? They oversee the world's largest open-air ghettos while claiming to be victims?
It'd be comical if there weren't actual human victims. I know, that evil Hamas rains down rockets on S'derot (aka, the ruins of Najd, the Palestinian village that is literally scrubbed from the history books.)
So, yeah, Palestinians bring this all on themselves. Because they're Arabs, or because they're Muslims.
Your propaganda war to make us all believe that they are sub-human has failed, despite the best efforts of Israeli-backed Hamas.
"...accepting a nuclear-capable Iran because we don't have the will to stop them from getting" such capability?
How does one begin to address this ubiquitous malapropism? What is this will? What would we have to do to exert it?
You write " It doesn't say we should agree with Israel on everything and we shouldn't pressure for change where we disagree." But curiously fail to mention any instances on which, in your view at least, the Obama administration should pressure Israel about or could disagree with.
Israelis in general are hypersensitive and reactionary to any change of policy coming from the white house. Obama has not done much more than to call Israel to stop construction of the illegal settlements base on the "Natural Growth" premise. Which by now we all know it a farce. And days later YouTube is filled with racist rants of Israelis praying for Obama's death. We all saw them.
Still, you bring out the unrelated issue of Saudi Arabia's awful human rights record. In an obviously thinly veiled attempt to claim moral high ground for the Israelis in the conflict they started an perpetuate, by reminding readers how barbaric the Muslims are. Even if it doesn't have anything to do with the topic discussed.It is a tired device that I keep spotting again and again in foreign policy (not just ForeingPolicy.com) articles defending Israel. "Don't look at our Palestinian Ghetto, don't look at our Gaza war crimes, they are having public beheading in SA for Jehovah's sake!"
For the good of the US, Obama, and the populace should observe the promise to Abram, and thence to the Jews:
"I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
Then again, for those who might point out the Abraham had two sons, God only acknowledges Isaac:
Gen 22:16-17 "By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son -- blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which [is] on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
WE in the USA do not want to be on the wrong side of this:
Joel 3:1: For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2: I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.
Don't divide the land. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
.
I appreciate David Rothkopf's call for everyone to take a deep breath, sound advice in any situation. I just wonder where his analysis leads.
Refraining from pressure on Israel not to expand settlements on the West Bank until the Iranian nuclear issue is decided makes sense only in the context of Israeli domestic politics, not in that of American interests. The United States needs to get clear of being blamed throughout the Arab countries every time there's a new controversy involving Israel. We also need to dissuade Iran from acquiring an arsenal of nuclear weapons. However, doing the latter doesn't address the former.
At bottom, the tension between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government is due to the latter's reluctance to challenge the intransigent and excitable pro-settlement factions within Israel. I'm sympathetic to Netanyahu's political problem here, but it is his problem, not ours. The United States can't be tip-toeing around every issue that causes the governing coalition du jour in Israel heartburn. Jewish settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River serve no American national interest. None. Zero. If America and Israel are facing "... a potentially unprecedented rift" over an American call for Israel to stop expanding settlements, surely Israel bears the greater responsibility for keeping such a rift from opening.
Let's assume for a moment that the Iranian nuclear "issue" is resolved to the satisfaction of Israel (bombing Iran, invading Iran, whatever). Why would then Israel agree to stop settlements activity? The whole negotiation process would start all over again with no end in sight with Israel back tracking on agreements and promises, as it has done in the past.
Also, it seems that we are limiting the issue to settlements alone. What about the right of return, the right to Palestine to be and function as a country? How does Israel practically envision a 2 states solution with Gaza and the West Bank physically separated? What about the existing settlements within the West Bank? There are so many open items and issues that have been allowed to be created over the past decades that make de facto almost impossible to achieve a negotiated agreement on all of them. If history is a sign, each issue will be cause for years of delay. De facto, Israel has created the conditions to prevent a Palestinian state to be created.
A one-state solution seems also not feasible given Israel wanting to be a Jewish state with no interest in allowing the Palestinians to become Israel citizens and give them the right to vote. That would basically undermine (i.e., destroy) the "Jewishness" of Israel.
I don't see any solution within the current framework, really. Israel will wait for the Palestinian population to die off over the next 100 years. As they said, there have been so many US presidents and there will be many more, but Israel will still be there. Not so for Palestine.
address our greater concerns in the region
But, what really are our greater concerns in the region?
It seems that our concerns in the region are Israel's concerns, but not because they really are ours, but because Israel convinced us that their problems are also ours.
Provacative Title-got my attention
Why do you equate these results with outright "anti-Israel" sentiment? And in my view, the title of this commentary is certainly attention-grabbing and provocative, but ultimately unfair. And while poll numbers are helpful in indicating trends, there sure isn't much room for nuance, is there?
When it comes to people's perception of Israel at this stage, could it be that perhaps *some* people don't agree with *some* of the policies of Israel and that perhaps Israel should take just a wee bit of responsibility for that? Why do *some* people seem to act as though Israel is *always* a victim of unfair outside perception without any role in that perception whatsoever. Sometimes they are, but not ALL the time.
Do you think the statements of any of Israel's leaders have anything to do with the perception that perhaps Israel is not as committed to peace as in the past? How about the military assault on Gaza? Maybe some people actually saw that as a bit heavy-handed with foreseeable consequences that would undermine the peace process? Do you think that Netanyahu's out-right refusal to consider stopping *all* continued settlement activity[including so-called natural growth], has anything to do with it? Do you think Israel's insistence that any Israeli-Palestinian-(and US) dialogue towards peace, be conditioned upon IRAN? Do you think Israel's not-so-subtle desire to engage in some sort of military action [which of course would pull the US into it in one aspect or another] against Iran's supposed nuclear [weapons] facilities or possibly even civilian nuclear facilities, could have something to do with perceptions? Wasn't Israel also gung-ho for taking out Saddam's mythical nuclear weapons capabilities? Because we're still reaping the wonderful benefits of that fiasco.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Palestinians, and in particular, their leaders, are blameless in all of this, but jeez, the idea that balance in the mid-east peace process strikes fear in the heart of some people, is a bit telling, isn't it- it's practically a way of saying that an absence of unquestioning pro-Israel viewpoint makes one "anti-Israel" and that really dumbs-down the conversation in my view.
What do you think would be the short AND long-term consequences of taking out, or as you say "deterring" Iran's nuclear program via bombs at a time when there is a huge sea-change in Iranian politics? I can think of no better way than to isolate the US and Israel from not only more extreme elements of Muslim countries, but even some more moderate ones. In fact, I think it would be a FANTASTIC recruiting tool for Osama Bin Laden and it would help De-Facto President Ahmadinejad (who the hawks in the US and Israel wanted to win anyway b/c it would be much harder to get support for bombing a country with a new, even slightly more moderate President. Did the US and Israel learn ANYTHING in Iraq?
And a question- why is all this Obama's fault? Why are people afraid of a bit of balance?
And for the record, I happen to be pro-Israel[before someone comes along and labels me anti-Israel or worse]. The thing is, I just happen to believe that being pro-Israel, much like being pro-American, doesn't require blind, unquestioning support for everything they do. In fact, it is precisely *BECAUSE* I would like to see Israel ultimately achieve peace and security, that I am willing to turn a critical eye towards some of their policies and not make excuses for them when public support waxes and wanes.
******************
Secretary Clinton Blog
There is nothing that surprises me about the figure of only 6% following the recent survey mentioned in Israel. All the information that I can glean on this subject shows a frightening dislike of the US in Israel with some of most deprecating comments I have ever heard on the Israeli attitude to Obama himself. Can't think what he has done to deserve what can only be called intense dislike bordering on hatred.
Is it possible that Israelis are racist? I cannot remember such a survey occurring during the time of the Bush cabal.
Certainly with the background of so many settlers coming from the criminal classes of Europe and eventually going on to become Prime Ministers of Israel and other roles of significance, means that such backgrounds would have made their mindset more accepting of all peoples from any colour or creed, but this doesn't seem to be so.
Suffice to say that this lack of acceptance of Obama and the negative attitude towards him, personally, does not auger well for any progress to any solution, whatever that might be.
For a professional journalist writing about Israel the article shows much ignorance. In his Cairo speach, and elsewhere Obama utterly failed to acknowledge that 1) the Jewish nation has deep roots in the Middle east, that is that creation of Israel is not merely a legacy of Holocaust as Arabs claim; and 2) that the incitement against Israel by virtually all Arab nations, and the calls for Israel's destruction are one of the key reasons for the continuation of the conflict.
It is not that Settlements are dear to the majority of Israelis, but that Obama is putting all of the US political weight in order to press this relatively minor issue at the expense of the issues that are really important for creating peace.
When Israel stops taking US money, then Israel would have a claim against Obama pressuring Israel.
Your 2 arguments are only demagoguery and an excuse for Israel to continue to be the bully that it is.
When Israel stops taking US money, then Israel would have a claim against Obama pressuring Israel.
Your 2 arguments are only demagoguery and an excuse for Israel to continue to be the bully that it is.
um, the article says 6% of Jewish Israeli's, not, 6% of Israelis. Easy to forget that 24% (or 20%, not sure who qualifies as Jewish for these polls) aren't Jewish. They still have citizenship...
What you say means sense until the time for conclusions and then you show your flag, as not so much pro-Israel but pro-Likud.
I urge you to make a distinction between Greater Israel and Better Israel--especially in a year when Israel has demonstrated more than ever to be a totalitarian nation.
How this dementia is good for the children of Israel is beyond me!
My second point is to be careful of the Fear-Mongering and the US-THEM mentality which you have snuck in on the sly.
Is it not curious that Israel and the Jews today so resemble their declared archenemies, the Catholic Church and the WWII Germans?
And you should be aware that the electorate in the 1930s-1940s, the ordinary Germans had no choice, but the electorate in 2009 in Israel consciously and in a secret ballot chose the worse racist government in the history of the land.
Barack Obama is no friend of ours.. Moot point!
I'm always drawn back to the actual facts on the ground in Israel. Both Christian and Arab Palestinians that live in Israel as citizens are afforded the same rights as Jews living in Israel, regarding their voting privileges and the freedoms they enjoy under a democratic society. When Israel was attacked by their Arab neighbors in '67, Palestinians controlled 1/2 of Jerusalem and were trying to get the 1/2 they didn't have and drive the Jews out. Even during Hitler's 3rd Reich years pre-Israel, many Arab leaders both spiritually and politically plotted with the Nazis to purge the Middle East of all Jews. Post '67, the Palestinians and their Arab counterparts played out their hand and lost 1/2 of Jerusalem. Then came the '73 war in which Israel came close to be over-run and they maintained control of Jerusalem and also took over other Arab controlled areas like the Sinai, but later returned them to the applicable
countries. Palestinians are under some delusion that Israel is going to divide Jerusalem, to appease them. Regardless of Israeli settlements in 'occupied' territory, Jews will never find peace in the Middle East because no Arab nation wants Israel to exist in any reconfigured shape or form period.
What is enough "will" to stop Iran's nuclear program?
Mr. Rothkopf, what do you suggest we do then? Is "will" to prevent a nuclear Iran equal to "military strike"? I see no other suggestions presented. Other than to maybe second-guess our decision to publicly denounce settlements.
I agree that the settlements are one small issue amongst the grand picture of Middle-Eastern stablity. But you have to start somewhere. This is a concrete issue. There is action that can be taken. Obama is an action guy, and this scares many Israelis. To say that he is getting 94% of Israel to hate him over what is a minor issue (settlements), teaches us more about Israel than it does about Obama.
This is a population living in perpetual fear, fear from legitimate external threats, and fear propagated by internal warmongers. Any threats to their hegemony or status quo are met with fierce resistance.
Your argument that Israel can bomb Iran like they bombed Iraq seems to suggest you are a proponent of that form of "deterrence."
How would Israel bombing Iran be good for the USA? I can certainly think of plenty of reasons why it would be bad, much of which has already been stated on other FP blogs.
Your final sentence seems to imply that we should think about the potential consequences of any rift between Israeli and U.S. foreign policy. Is that a threat? And to whom? What will Israel do, exactly? What do you see as the potential consequences? Less power for the elite of the American/British neo-empire about which you frequently write?
If this is such a sensitive time, then maybe this would be a good time for right wing Israelis to say to themselves:
"Let's see... Virtually everyone in the world thinks that the settlements are illegal, an obstacle to peace, and a major irritant. Wonder if there's something to that..."
Freezing (let alone removing) settlements is an incredibly easy and visible step Israel could take to move towards peace. Yes, the Palestinians have a lot to do as well, but this endless "you go first" game will not succeed - the Palestinians are perpetually in chaos and unable to go first. Yes, it would be politically difficult. But if the Israeli government can't/won't stand up to its extremists, why should you suggest that WE shouldn't? Does the US have some obligation to Israel that we don't know about that requires us to provide billions in aid, access to military technology, and political cover - without asking anything in return? Even basic respect for human rights?
I think "A balanced view" put it well, and speaks for a far greater portion of the US and world (and possibly Israeli) population than Mr. Rothkopf does.
Question:
If they do freeze or remove settlements again, how long before you forget they did "go first", offer the excuse that the "Palestinians are perpetually in chaos and unable to go first", and call on the Israelis to make the next concession as a first move?
How long before our President describes this as "no progress" and calls on the Israelis to engage again in "serious self-reflection"? And how long before he reneges on any further agreements we make with Israel, as he did on those we made so they would have the confidence to "go first" and end the occupation in Gaza?
"When Israel stops taking US money, then Israel would have a claim against Obama pressuring Israel. "
The Military Aid that Israel receives at this point is a treaty obligation that the US Govt. entered into as part of the Egyptian/Israeli accord that resulted in the return of the Sinai and a peace treaty between Israel and Eygpt. This was of great strategic importance to the US and the Military Aid was designed to compensate Israel for the loss of an extensive defensive buffer zone and a domestic oil supply. It is not a gift or hand out, but payment for services rendered.
"I don't understand why Obama's policy is seen as such a massive shift."
Perhaps because it is.
The only reason Ariel Sharon was able to pull the plug on the entire settlement structure in Gaza was the promise from the Bush administration that the continued 'natural/normal' growth of communities on the west bank would continue.
So, yes, a call for a settlement freeze is seen as a major change.
Seriously, even Meretz won't buy this, and you won't even get Peace Now to sign off on a demand that Gush Etzion be handed over to the PA.
double posted, sorry
let us talk straight out real-politik here.
The US wants leverage over Israel.
The US has two levers - Cash and a veto in the UN security council. That's it.
The cash is nice, but really it all gets funneled back into the US military/industrial complex as corporate welfare. Truly, IMI makes the Tabor which is far better than the M16, but Israel keeps buying the M16's because Colt owns two senators from Connecticut...we are talking about maybe 1% of Israeli GDP at this point....
Imagine a world where Sukhoi's are built in Israel under license, with IAF avionics, radars, and targeting pods, are sold to China, along with the AWACS, Phalcon radars, and heck, the chance to play WTF against Israeli pilots flying F18's...all in exchange for an occasional veto in the UN.
The Chinese don't give a sh!t about the plight of the Arabs.
BTW...just remember that all of your windows security software (along with IM, Skype, VOIP, etc.) was written by ex-mossadniks...that ought to keep you warm and comfy...
bottom line is, while Israel would lose a lot if the US/Israeli relationship soured, the US stands to lose a whole lot more.
Put that in your real-politick pipe and chew on it for a while.
David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.
Read More
Jan/Feb 2012
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Inbox
(32)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE