http://www.theghostnation.com/forums...united-states/

How About a Clean Break €“ with Israel?/span

/font

By Philip Giraldi €” MP3/font

Back in 1996, a group of leading neoconservatives led by Richard Perle
drafted a memorandum for then (as now) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, recommending that Israel adopt a more aggressive and
assertive policy towards its neighbors. They called it a €œClean Break€�
to suggest that it would be a major shift in policy. Today, as American
foreign policy looks more like a shipwreck than a victory lap, there is
perhaps a need for a Clean Break by Washington. As the relationship with
Tel Aviv has an impact far beyond Israels size and importance it
should, ironically, be the first element in the foreign policy disaster
that is examined.

Many Americans who indulge in the mainstream media believe that Israel
is a close friend and ally to the United States and that when it is
criticized the complaints are often unfair and might even in some cases
be motivated by anti-Semitism. Some Americans, mostly evangelical
Christians, actually believe that Israel is a special nation either
because it is the homeland of the Jewish people or anointed by God and
that all other nations of the world should defer to it and protect it.
Still other Americans realize that Israel is a nation with good and bad
aspects but are intent on using American power and wealth to nurture it
because they share either ethnic or religious ties with it./span

Some Americans look beyond the bumper sticker definitions to recognize
that Israel is indeed like many other countries in most respects but
that it is also a special nation in that it has as its protector the
most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth. Some think that role to be
appropriate because the US has an obligation to guarantee Israeli
security, while others would disagree. Those who disagree frequently do
so because they find the Israeli influence over the United States to be
a dark force, sometimes leading Washington and its elected officials to
endorse policies that do not serve the interests of the American people.
They would cite examples like the Iraq War, in which supporters of
Israel played an enabling role, as well as the ongoing agitation to
attack Iran, which would be a replay of Iraq only much much worse.

That Israel is able to control many aspects of Americas relationship
with foreign nations is clear and the hubristic Israel Lobby makes
virtually no effort to hide what it is doing. On January 18th, Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wrote a
letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling on the United
States to veto any resolution in the United Nations condemning the
Israeli settlements policy. The settlements are illegal under
international law and the pending resolution in the UN carefully uses
the precise language previously employed by US administrations to
criticize their expansion in an attempt to create an acceptable document
and avoid a veto, but the result is not good enough for Gillibrand.
Joined by 15 other senators as cosignatories, Gillibrand maintains
fatuously and falsely that any criticism of the settlements €œhurts the
prospects for a peace agreement and is not in the interest of the United
States.€� In reality, as she well knows, it is US acquiescence in the
settlements that damages the US standing in the world.

The past ten days has also provided several other examples of how Israel
exerts a strongly negative influence on American foreign policy.
President Barack Obamas State of the Union address urged support for
democratic forces in Tunisia. But he did not provide similar support for
the democratic forces in Egypt and for the new government in Lebanon,
which are both nations currently experiencing political unrest. Why?
Because both are frontline states with Israel, meaning that Washington
can only consider its relationship to them in terms of whether their
political developments are good for Israel or not. This has been
excruciatingly clear in the numerous comments by US government spokesmen
relating to developments in Cairo: Israel is almost invariably
mentioned. The United States prefers to give Cairo billions in aid and
covertly support the dictatorial rule of Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak because Egypt has kept the peace with Israel. Washington will
likewise oppose any government in Lebanon that is beholden to Hezbollah,
even if it does not threaten the US or American interests in any way,
because Hezbollah is the enemy of Israel.

Looking at the Middle East region objectively, one has to question
Washingtons actions. The US national interest is to have a peaceful
resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which would require an end
to the Israeli settlement policy. It also mandates non-hostile relations
with Lebanon and Egypt, nothing more. The Suez Canal is the only asset
controlled by Egypt that has international significance and it is in
Cairos interest, no matter what kind of government it has, to keep it
open and bringing in revenue. Egypt, Palestine, and Lebanon produce
nothing that the US needs to have and they are not important markets for
American goods. None of them threatens any genuine American vital interest.

In another related development, last Wednesday newly elected senator
Rand Paul said that he favors ending all foreign aid, including the aid
given to Israel and Egypt, because the United States can no longer
afford it. Rather than encouraging anyone to debate the issue on its
merits, the Israel Lobby, Democratic politicians, and a representative
from Pauls own Republican Party immediately attacked him, saying the
proposal was unthinkable. Well, think again. Israel gets billions of
dollars yearly from the US for no good reason beyond its ability to
manipulate Congress and the media. Pauls opening the door to a serious
discussion about ending that subsidy is long overdue.

Senator Gillibrands excursion into fantasy, Rand Pauls experience in
opening Pandoras box, and the developing situation in Egypt together
illustrate how Israel is a United States national security liability and
always has been. The relationship narrows the options that US
policymakers can pursue in dealing with problems relating to the Muslim
world. Arguments that Israeli and American foreign policies are and need
to be identical based on shared opposition to international terrorism
and other such €œvalues€� are fallacious and are based on constructs that
are essentially false.

Israels bad relationship with its Muslim neighbors has led to frequent
wars and more limited military actions since the founding of the
country. In a normal world, the onus would be on Israel to establish a
modus vivendi with its neighbors, but it has regularly chosen to use the
mailed fist as its first option. Since it is a small country lacking in
resources, it has only been able to accomplish this by seeking out what
might be described as a force multiplier. To that end it has opted to
use its powerful lobby to shift US policy in its favor, relying on
America as a source of funds and both political and military protection.
Its leading politicians have even bragged about how the United States
does its bidding. This has done extreme damage to the United States,
which has initiated at least one war as a result, and has been engaged
in what must be described as a nearly continuous and escalating conflict
with the entire Muslim world on behalf of Israel. This has trashed
Americas reputation and has come at a real cost of trillions of dollars
and thousands of lives. The benefit to the American people has been zero.

In accomplishing its strategic objective of making the United States its
permanent protector, Israel and its lobby have also corrupted both
Congress and the White House and have created a permanent distortion in
how Washington sees the world and responds to it. Israels enemies, even
if they do not threaten the United States in any way, have become
Americas enemies. This has made the US in the eyes of much of the world
the enabler of Israeli actions and has in turn made Americans the
targets of international terrorism. Osama bin Laden was very clear on
the subject, stating that the United States is a partner in the Israeli
oppression of the Palestinians. The Israel relationship is a recruiting
tool for those who seek to do harm to the United States. Without the
Israeli nexus, there would have been no 9/11 and there would be no
hysteria about the danger from terrorists driving growth in government
and the development of the anti-libertarian security state.

And the relationship is expensive. Israel seeks to militarily dominate
its neighbors. It does so with American-provided weapons and maintains
its edge through US coproduction agreements that essentially fund jobs
in Israeli defense industries that compete directly with US companies
that sell the same products. Even though Israel is one of the richest
countries in the world, Washington gives it a vast array of advanced
weaponry for free and also hands to it the technologies that enable it
to eliminate American jobs. As Israeli companies can bid on defense
contracts just as if they were American companies, they frequently also
wind up getting the work that would go to Americans. Because of the high
level of American direct aid plus unique tax breaks for American
citizens who give money to Israel, Israelis have free medical care and
university education, benefits that few Americans enjoy.

And, finally, Israel is not afraid to bite the hand that feeds it. It is
annually rated by the FBI as the €œfriendly€� country that is most
aggressive in spying to obtain US defense secrets and advanced
technology. The mainstream media is complicit in not featuring stories
that relate to Israeli espionage, but the cases number in the hundreds.
Several spies who have been caught in the act have received a slap on
the wrist instead of real punishment. One, Ben-Ami Kadish, was even able
to continue to receive his government pension after stealing and passing
on defense secrets.

Now I will be the first to admit that my narrative presented above
reveals my own biases in that I am appalled at what Israel and its
supporters have done to my country. But I have to believe that by any
objective standard, the relationship with Israel does nothing good for
the United States and does, instead, a great deal of damage. That
leading policymakers are afraid to challenge the billions of dollars
flowing to Tel Aviv while US senators line up to sign on to a letter
that opposes their own countrys interests is a tragedy of epic
proportions. That Washington will define its own interests in the Middle
East largely in terms of whether they are compatible with those of
Israel is nothing short of betrayal of the Constitution, which
established a national government that would benefit the American people
and make them both safe and prosperous. One hesitates to borrow rhetoric
from the neoconservatives, but sometimes even they get something right.
It is indeed time for a clean break, but this time with Israel.

Article Source: antiwar.com

Staff/span