Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Israel: Barack Obama is no friend of ours…
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.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
David Rothkopf is the author of Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making and Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power. He is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and President and CEO of Garten Rothkopf, a Washington, DC-based international advisory firm.
Growing Dissonance
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.
I agree
However, regardless of what short term, probably biased or poorly executed polling indicates, Long term, the Israeli people are generally FOR ending the settlements and see them as an unnecessary impediment to peace. Many also resent having to consign their children to function as human shields to protect the settlers, whose values and aspirations they do not share.
As in parenting, sometimes being liked for your decisions is not important. In fact, sometimes it is indicative of being on the right track.
Israels settlements are morally indefensible. They inspire terror against the US and Israel, and would have long ago collapsed under their own crushing financial weight if the US was not subsidizing the occupation that the necessitate.
It is QUITE clear that the settlements, a form of violently enforced apartheid and ethnic cleansing, are on the way out. It is really just a matter of whether people in Israel and the US are sufficiently sick of subsidizing the very thing that is the major contributor to what Bill Clinton referred to as the philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorism.
Regarding Iran, The author says "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".
Scratch that, and make it "most breathing Homo Sapiens" seem to discount....
The entire Iran "crisis" is so much conflated hot air. Iran has not attacked another nation in about 250 years. The premise is that, once this otherwise peaceful nation attains its first nuclear weapon, it will duct tape it to the head of a bottle rocket, point it at Israel, plug its ears, shut its eyes, and then wait for both the US and Israel to blow the entire nation of Iran into kingdom come.
The only piece of evidence to support this ridiculous claim is based on a willfully mistranslated quote from Ahmedinijad that really meant to suggest that they would like to see the current REGIME in Israel removed and forgotten, a sentiment that is shared by saudi arabian leaders, Pakastani leaders, and MANY other nations we consider to be our allies.
Ironically, if Obama is successful in forcing Israel to raze its settlements and pull out the IDF for good, just as Rahm Emanuel suggested, Irans claims to moral superiority will evaporate, as will that of Hamas, Hezbollah and most of the other groups who work against Israel. The settlements actually HURT our negotiating position with Iran, and feed these other groups with willing recruits.
Incredibly well-said. I
Incredibly well-said.
I especially agree with your last paragraph.
Balanced,In my opinion you
Balanced,
In my opinion you are usually on track with your analysis, but in this post there are some glaring errors:
The error isn't whether Clinton said it or not, I don't know that, but in the statement itself (which you clearly agree with). Middle eastern terrorism easily predated the settlements. It is a common tactic used by Arab middle eastern countries against Israel and each other. Even if you get more specific and say "middle eastern terrorism based on the West's support of Israel", a "thought experiment" whereby there are no settlements but everything else remains as is still yields so-called middle eastern terrorism. And anyone familiar with the facts knows 9/11 happens even without an Israel-Palestine dispute.
Of course, Iran does this through proxies. It is surprising to me that you give them a free pass because they fund, arm and train terror groups rather than attacking others directly. And while the ultimate risk is that they hand a device off to one of their proxies, the chances of this are slim. The real effect will to embolden Iran to become more adventurous though their proxies because they will (rightfully so) feel immune from direct attack. This will most certainly harm our interests as well as Israel's.
Not true. The support of this claim, whether you view this particular statement as a threat or a prediction, comes when you look at this "prediction" in context with the entire body of the regime's statements and actions. I also view this possibility as an extremely low probability event, but I don't pooh-pooh it entirely as you do based on controversy surrounding this one statement, believing you need to view things in larger context. I also don't believe that the Iranians necessarily need to say "We're going to nuke you!" in order for it to be considered a possibility.
Your reply
Bill Clinton DID say that during a Charlie Rose Interview after 9/11. If you need more proof that the sentiment is shared by most experts on the matter, well, Bush Senior tried to cut off all funding to Israel until they ended the settlements, because as former head of the CIA, he understood that they inspire terror against both Israel and the US.
Jimmy Carter, well, need I say more? The head of the Bin Laden unit of the CIA concurs, as does Tony Blair, as did the Iraq Study Group (a massive bi partisan effort) which concluded that NOTHING of lasting value will be achieved in the middle east, Including stability in Iraq, until the Israeli Palestinian conflict is put to rest, and the settlements, which have necessitated the occupation for decades, ARE the problem. This is key, because you suggest that if the settlements were gone, there would still be some sort of threat against Israel, and it is the finding of ALL of these experts that the settlements and the occupation are the KEY ELEMENTS that continue to drive the conflict.
The FOREMOST expert on 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, said that he conceived of the plan after watching Israeli jets bombing civilian apartment towers, full of innocent people, as they tried to assassinate the PLO leaders there. 9/11 probably would NOT have happened without more than 4 decades of the outrageous settlements and the brutal occupation that they necessitate. That is PRECISELY what Bill Clinton meant when he called the Israeli Palestinian conflict the philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorist recruitment
It is SO plainly true, that not a single other nation on earth recognizes the settlements as either a part of Israel nor in any way legitimate. There are few world Issues which enjoy that much consensus.
Regarding Iran
Iran HAS NOT attacked another nation in about 250 years, That's a fact, and one that cannot be discounted when measuring the threat a nation might pose. Their involvement with supporting "terrorist" groups are limited to Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which would be thriving and active with out ANY support from Iran, and, Furthermore, Iran is hardly the only nation giving funds or other support to those groups, as their causes are widely sympathized with throughout the region, and even more so after Israel's utterly pointless, abortive, and brutal exercises in collective punishment aimed at those groups and the millions people unfortunate enough to live around them.
The attempt to link all these groups (Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas) together is a naked attempt to draw the US into further pointless wars aimed at what the Israeli Right hopes we see as a common threat, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Regarding the statement by Ahmedinijad, well, it IS a willful mistranslation, a fact which seems lost on you as you try to obfuscate the issues. The irony of your final statement is that Iran has given NO SIGNAL OF ANY KIND that it would ever attack Israel, While Israel has been saying, in MANY different venues and very directly , that they are probably going to attack Iran.
Iran support Hamas and Hezbollah? so do other middle eastern nations. Many analysts suggest that Israel helped support Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah, so It becomes confusing if you use that as a criterion for attacking a supporter.
Bill Clinton DID say that
I didn't dispute he said it, I said it wasn't true. The you go on to describe in multiple paragraphs how the settlements are an impediment to peace. This may be so, but it isn't the point I addressed (remember, we were addressing whether they were the "philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terror"). We also have ample evidence that the settlements aren't the real barrier to peace, as you posit, given that Israel completely uprooted the settlements from Gaza and there was no peace. Violence actually increased. Which points to the possibility that you are confusing cause and effect here.
I'm sure you know that this logical fallacy is known as an appeal to the majority.
This is a fact. I didn't dispute it. My point was that it was a misleading fact. While it shouldn't be discounted, it should also not be looked at in a vacuum. You need to look at things in context, and not use isolated "facts" to make a case.
Why the scare quotes? Do you not agree that Hamas and Hezbollah by purposely attacking civilians should be deemed terrorist groups?
Even ignoring the fact that Iran supports more terror groups than just Hezbollah and Hamas, or more direct acts of war by having their own their own agents participate directly in attacks, the assertions that:
or
,
...again don't address the point, which is the fact that Iran uses these and other groups as operational arms of their intelligence/military apparatus. Ie, Iran attacks its neighbors through these groups. Having a telethon for Hezbollah is much different from ordering them to stage a terror attack against another nation. There is an article linked on the front page here now about the five most powerful spymasters in the mideast which, more or less, describes these groups as basically arms of Iran's state intelligence/operational apparatus.
Obfuscate? I thought I was pretty clear things need to be taken in context. I didn't expound, but for instance, a small part of that context is Rasfanjani's statement about a Muslim bomb being able to completely destroy Israel while they could only injure the Muslim world.
And you assert this is a willful mistranslation, but I have seen both sides taken by partisans and I don't think it is proven either way. Calling it a fact or asserting it multiple times doesn't change that. Do you speak Farsi?
This coming after denying the attacks for years, and the planes in question were attacking the PLO in Lebanese territory in response to the PLO waging war from the territory. This in 1982. Note no settlements in evidence. It is hard to see how four decades of settlements can be the cause of an attack conceived 25 years earlier based on an action nowhere near and having nothing to do with a settlement. This is hardly what I would call "a balanced view".
Re: your reply
1) I think Clintons expertise far outstrips yours, so when he calls this the philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorism, I am likely to defer to him as opposed to you. Furthermore, as I pointed out and you ignored, his opinion is shared by most living presidents, and many in the CIA, along with many world leaders.
You simply assert that he is wrong, and give weak evidence as to why that would be. Using gaza as a template is ridiculous. Gaza was endlessly bombed and raided after the withdrawal, has been totally blockaded by Israel and SHOULD have UN peace keepers there, keeping both sides honest. If there is a pullout in the rest of the occupied territories, but they are subjected to similar treatment, there will be no peace there either, however the same is true for any state of the US as well. blockade them, bomb civilian centers and make constant assassination attempts, and the people of Georgia would be strapping suicide vests on and shelling their oppressors until it stopped.
I have to add here that the settlements are morally reprehensible. They serve no positive purpose. They are a form of apartheid and ethnic cleansing of the worst sort. they have persisted and grown for more than 4 decades, and are the sole reason that the occupation must continue to exist. As such, what people in the world, if subjected to such treatment, would tolerate it??? None. and that's why Israel is the only nation in the world to run a state sanctioned.
2)
An appeal to the majority is only a fallacy if it is unspecific and untrue. In this case, case it is a FACT that not a single other nation on earth supports the legitimacy of the settlements. There is a reason why that is, and it is because the behavior in question is considered, world wide, to be illegal and immoral. That illegal and immoral behavior that is condemned world wide would cause a violent reaction in the people that have been subjected to it for decades goes without saying.
3) the quotes are there because (and this is part of the point) that many other countries in the region and around the world DO NOT consider Hamas or Hezbollah to be terrorist groups. They enjoy WIDE support in the region. To suggest that Iran is somehow special in this case is an obfuscation of the truth.
4) So, like many other nations in the region, Iran sympathizes and supports Hamas and Hezbollah. So what. Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation that sold nuke tech, in a militarily assisted mission, to both Iran and north Korea is at REAL WAR with an ally of the US, India, (also a nuclear armed nation). Osama Bin Laden lives in Pakistan. 10s of thousands of his supporters and soldiers live there, and they control large portions of the country. The Military has many al qeada sympathizers. The Taliban Leadership live there, along with 10s of thousands of supporters and use it as a base to run raids against our soldiers in Afghanistan. The country is OVERFLOWING with radicals who hate Israel and the US. They just ran a huge terrorist raid against India.
All of that being said, we still consider Pakistan to be our ally. What in Gods name makes Iran (who HATES al qeada and helped us in Iraq) even a FRACTION of the threat to Israel or the US that our great friend Pakistan is???
So I will break it down; Paksitan; A nuclear power, overflowing with warlike violent radicals who have attacked the US at home and abroad, who have illegally sold nuke tech, who are AT WAR with India, from which actual terrorist raids are run against US troops and India. CONSIDERED TO BE OUR ALLY.
Iran; no wars for 250 years, no nukes, hate al qeada and the Taliban, no explicit threats of any kind towards either the US or Israel. THREATENED BY ISRAEL CONSTANTLY AS BEING A POTENTIAL EXISTENTIAL THREAT.
The conclusion? The "Iran" crisis is no crisis at all as long as we can go on calling nations like Pakistan our ally.
Israel is simply using them as an excuse not to act on the settlements issue.
In conclusion,
According to the CIAs bin laden unit head, the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the settlements play a huge role in inspiring terrorism. (Carter, Clinton, Blair, The Iraq Study group, members of the 9/11 commission, Colin Powell, adn a HUGE number of other world leaders and experts, including almost all middle eastern leaders, diplomats and experts agree).
I think Clintons expertise
Another logical fallacy - appeal to authority.
It does suit your argument to lable my evidence "weak", but you will need to address what I say to show it. The Gaza example was in response to your contention that settlements are an impediment to peace, not Clinton's statement that they are the philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorism.
False. It can be true, but the appeal to the majority doesn't prove anything.
That's a good example of where the majority is wrong then, isn't it, and why an appeal to the majority is indeed a logical fallacy.
You are obviously avoiding addressing my points. To Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are operational arms of their intelligence and military services. Both groups take orders from Iran and Iran uses them to attack other countries. This is HUGELY different from support and sympathy.
Another obvious logical fallacy, for a number of reasons.
In conclusion,
Most of your post consists of appeals to authority and to the majority. People who can think for themselves aren't swayed by this kind of argument, and don't present them AS arguments.
I don't think we can continue
I don't think we can continue on this course, in that you have boxed yourself into an argument that asserts that Israels stance on a variety of issues is unimpeachable, even in the face of the opinion of virtually the rest of the world, and the vast majority of experts on the subject.
Your argument throws out consensus and experience and relies
solely on the opinion of a radical subset of Israel and the US to determine what is right and what is wrong, in that you present no facts to counter anything that I have stated.
They will reject America
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.
Israel maybe correct.
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
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.
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
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
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.
"the WILL"?
"...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
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,
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.
Is this for real?
Is this for real?
unfortunately, some 40
unfortunately, some 40 percent of the population probably agrees with that post.
And Israel capitalizes on it.
And Israel capitalizes on it.
I was wondering whether it
I was wondering whether it ever occurred to to you, that Jesus was asked to remove the occupying Roman Army from Israel, but he scoffed at the idea, suggesting that his mission here had absolutely nothing to do with that. From a christian apologetics standpoint, the "promised land" is NOT a nice piece of sea side real estate that Jewish people get as a consolation prize for never getting to go to heaven because they don't recognize Jesus, but rather the "promised land" is the promise of salvation that christ's sacrifice on the cross offers to all people.
So I'll break it down; does the bible suggest that we treat the Palestinians like scum (not as we would be treated ourselves)and forget all that love crap, or that stuff about how you treat the least of those is how you are treating me (Jesus),
OR
Is it about spreading the word of Christ and living the love he preached as an example to others that they may also see the light?
I think if Christ comes back to see the US enjoining Israel in subjugating an entire and almost totally innocent population to the worst possible treatment in HIS NAME, hes going to be rather pissed off. Remember, he could have CARED LESS about the Roman occupation of Israel, and he had no love for the Jewish religious or political leaders of his time either (he was Jewish, so don't start calling him an anti Semite) He was interested in doing something for ALL people, and not just a group of them.
.
.
Closing the Rift
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
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
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.
The biggest reason that we
The biggest reason that we have been involved historically in the region in general is because we have a national security level motivation to ensure that oil continues to flow regularly, and to ensure that our enemies do not gain ground in the region against us.
Supporting Israel blindly is easy for our cowardly and self centered congress and house in this equation, because they are an asset in the region, and few in this nation have cared about what they did, until 9/11.
They have becoming less and less of an asset, and mreo of a direct burden, and will remain so until the settlement and the occupation are gone.
For their sake, if they have not made peace before ewe achieve energy independence, We will abandon them to their own devices, along with the entire region, just as we did in Afghanistan after the mujaheddin brought down the soviets for us or just as we left the Hmong out the cold after we pulled out of their region.
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
Israel and Obama
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.
It is not about settlements
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
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
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.
Chris, Having deep roots does
Chris,
Having deep roots does not give one the power to break all international and humanitarian law at will. So, what is your point regarding deep roots and the settlements? ethnic cleansing and apartheid are wrong no matter WHAT.
Now, last I heard, Israel was not threatened by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon (despite Hezbollah) Jordan, or Turkey.
They are not liked, but also not credibly threatened by, Iran either. I am therefore at a loss to understand what it is you mean by "virtually all" arab nations threatening them.
um, the article says 6% of
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...
not quite
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.
I don't get it
There are people out there who think we can make anti-gravity. Go watch the Twilight Zone.
There aint no solution to the Israel-Arab conflict. Anyone even using using the word "solution" is a genocidal maniac, bent on the destruction of world Jewry. That's the kind of terms the NAzi's used "solution". What are we, your freaking Problem?
Sure looks like it.
How about realizing that Israel doesn't have to give scrap of land to anyone. How about Turkey giving back Ararat? How about the Saudi's, giving back the Hashemites Mecca? How abou Baluchistan going back to Iran? How about half of northern Iran, going back to Azerbaijan? How about a nice extension of Turkestan, in northern Iraq? And how about a Kurdistan? How about the Maghrebians giving back the Colons their lands, from which they were massacred in the sixties. How about the Muslim world giving back to the Jews, what they stole from us in the fifties and sixties. How about it, huh?
But no, you gotta go on the Jews, on Israel, and give us the West bank.
Turkey just openened a damned Palestinian Embassy in Ankara!! Erdogan said he looks forward to the day he opens his empassy in East Jerusalem!
Since when the Hell is Jerusalem a Muslim city?! There was still a Christian Majority in 1900! Then Obamoid runs around telling the Arabs they have to make concessions too. What's it their business, to make consenssions. They should make it their business to but out of our business. Arabs and Muslims. They then compalin we demonise them, beceause their nose is up our ass. What do they want. Get their noses out of our asses! Get out of our politics. Let the "poor" Palestinians fend for themselves. What's with all the "Solidarity" crap?! And then they wonder why we demonise them? Huh? Did I miss something here? Was the show cancelend? Where are the fireworks. Tuk tuk?!
It's insane. We've got tribalists garbed in kaftans and checkered kitchen towels, who still cant use a fork and a knife, wont allow a single church built in their country, let alone a decent mega-synagogue, that we have to go and supplicate to make concessions?! Damned that Allah was good, he blessed an old geryatric like Abdullah, with oodles of oil. He'd still be ridding camels, if not for the Land Rover's hydrocarbons that we have the technology to extract, afford him.
Now we gotta go and beg these sand-baggers!? WTF? Because Mohammade (no peace be upon him) used Jerusalem as a cosmodrome? Cuz he went up to Paradise from Jerusalem (an apocryphal pseud-legend)?
Basically, the Muslims are gonna push us into the sea, and it will be on Obamoid's watch. And once they unite around that cause, they'll resurrect their little petty Caliphate, and boy - wait till then, once they control Malacca, and Suez, we'll see whose licking their wounds!!!!
If this is parody, kudos! I
If this is parody, kudos! I think the thing I'll miss the most about you Jews is your sense of humor. Not so much the apartheid/lebensraum mentality though.
why should we sacrifice the
why should we sacrifice the safety of the world so that 6 million jews can live in a tinderbox without making an effort to live in peace? of course, you probably think muslims are inherently aggressive, evil, and maniacal, so i doubt you will change your mind. oil is going to spike again and again in the years ahead, and the arab defense spending will rise relative to israel's. they probably won't tolerate continued humiliation as US influence wanes over the next decades. the israelis have nothing to offer the arabs. israel should recognize that their founders didn't consider the neighborhood they were joining very carefully. who cares if israel is the only democracy there if it exists in total opposition to the rest of the countries (therefore has no chance of spreading democracy), disenfranchises scores of people, and seems to neglect the needs of its minority citizens by expropriating even their land. the only way israel makes itself accepted in the region is by dominating militarily, but this cannot continue indefinitely. Many Israelis (at least the settlers) claim a biblical right to all of this land, then call the muslims crazy for making similar claims. in fact, they label them racist for making the same claims. well, there are virulent racists on both sides of this debate, but despite what you Likudniks might say they aren't those who call for an even-handed peace policy from the United States. they are people like lieberman and khaled meshaal. for those of you hate each other, quit saying one hatred is more righteous than the other's. they are the same. if israel wants to follow more self-defeating policies, there is nothing the us can do. the israeli lobby (including the moral majority people) operates like heroin for the settlement community, which pursues the ridiculous "eretz yisrael" concept with defiance and impunity. the 21st century is not a time for new land acquisitions. if israel doesn't recognize this now, it will when it has, in 30 or so years, a population of palestinians double the size of its own. then israel will be another south africa, and the us won't be able to stop the international community (and your hated UN) from cutting israel back down to size, if not turning it into a binational state. the american right enables the israeli right--it might as well be called assisted suicide.
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?
The WILL!
"...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?
MDrew, What keeps this unclear for you is that you think of us as americans.
Imagine that keeping iranians from getting nukes was the most important issue in the world, an issue so important that nothing else matters until that is settled. Then it would be clear that we can in fact do so. We could nuke their nuclear facilities, and we could nuke their cities. When there aren't very many iranians and they don't have much physical capital, they can't make nukes.
We could do it without nuking them, given the will. We could bomb them with conventional bombs until they had no industry left. We would take some losses, but we could do it.
A lot of iranians would of course starve without a transportation system to get them food. It would actually be kinder to dump nerve gas on their cities to quickly kill off the population that would otherwise die slowly and painfully.
Americans simply don't have the Will to do what needs to be done. We lack Will. We lack the Wille zur Macht. If only we could go ahead and do it, it would certainly be a Triumph of Will for us. But, not being nazis, we lack the resolve.
If this is such a sensitive
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
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?
What other people in the
What other people in the WORLD are currently subjected to what the Palestinians are going through at the hands of the settlers and the IDF, but really "have it together"?
A few thoughts
"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.
A few thoughts
double posted, sorry
The Military Aid that 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. .... It is not a gift or hand out, but payment for services rendered.
I didn't realise that! So, in return for israel turning sinai into a demilitarized zone, the USA agreed to give them $3 billion/year forever?
Sweet deal for israel.
Do you have a link to the text of that treaty?
But anyway, given the decline of the USSR (and the possible decline of the USA) it isn't obvious that US strategic needs still line up the same way. How about we abrogate the treaty? If israel then decides they want to take the sinai back without getting any US support for it, I guess the USA would just have to respond to that however we thought best.
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.
It sounds like we're getting a series of really stupid foreign treaties with israel. Some of them completely secret like that one. I hate it when Bush makes a secret treaty and doesn't inform Congress or the public, and then people expect Obama to honor it. I just hate it when that happens.
So, yes, a call for a settlement freeze is seen as a major change.
But hasn't the US government all along said that settlements in the occupied territories are illegal by international law? Haven't we all along publicly called for settlement freezes?
Are you saying that the US government was being completely hypocritical, and was making secret agreements with israel that were completely different from the stand we told the US public and the world that we were taking? That israel understood that the US government was lying to the US public and the world, but somehow they believed that the US government would not lie to them?
Whyever would the israelis be so gullible?
dude
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.
Truly, IMI makes the Tabor
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....
I haven't checked the details about this, except to note that israel is phasing out the M16s in favor of the Tavor which they think is better.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124587
But for years and years they've gone with the american gun which they think is worse. Risking their soldiers so they could rent two US senators from Colt.
1% of israel's GDP.
It sounds like they think support from the US government is vitally important to them.