Does the United States need Israel?

The more I have thought about the current situation that Israel finds itself, vis-a-vis the United States, the more I realize that we need to re-examine the relationship.

Not so long ago the world had two super-powers trying to outmaneuver each other; trying to gain footholds in various places around the world; using proxies to fight the hot wars in order to avoid all out conflict. This is no longer the world we live in - that world no longer exists.

Instead, the United States is the only existing super-power with the threats of nuclear-armed state actors and terrorist organizations around the world. In many ways, it is a more dangerous world than we had previously faced 20 years ago. These rogue states and terrorists answer to no one but themselves and their dangerous ideology.

While Israel may have been a good friend to the United States in the fight against the Soviets, it is no longer needed in that position since the collapse of the USSR. In fact, Israel may be seen by some as a detriment to the US.

The United States is at war with Islamic terrorists. As such, the US has to be able to negotiate with the Arab/Muslim countries in order to try to stop these terrorists. There is also the US dependency on Arab oil.

Americans have a strong tendency to think that everyone else believes in the same truths as we believe. We have codified these beliefs in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. We believe that "all men are created equal" and that our government cannot establish an official religion for the country - that all are allowed to worship freely. The beauty of the United States is E Pluribus Unum - 'out of many, one', we all believe in these codified beliefs.

We take these truths for granted - and are blinded by them at the same time. We assume that these truths are universal, that others believe in them as well. It's not true - especially in the Muslim world. As a wise man once said - this is the Middle East, not the middle west.

Some Americans believe that we can negotiate our differences away - in other words "why can't we all just get along."

In order to fully understand the differences between American ideals and the Muslim world we need to look at the ideology of the Islamic terrorists since they are on the forefront of the conflict.

Islamic terrorists are religious Muslims. They believe in certain basic beliefs.

The Revelation from G-d.
They believe that the Jews received a Revelation from G-d, the Torah, but then corrupted that Revelation. Christians received a Revelation, the New Testament, but corrupted their book too. According to them, the Koran is the final, uncorrupted word of G-d.

World View.
To these Muslims, the world is divided into two parts. The first part is the Dar al-Islam, the House of Islam. This is the area that, according to the Koran, is under Muslim rule. The second part is called Dar al-Harb, the House of War. This refers to the area of the world that is under non-Muslim control. Between these two parts there will always be perpetual state of war. They believe that this will continue until the non-Muslims either accept Islam, or submit to being second class citizens to Muslim rulers.

Some Muslims argue that they only fight defensively - not offensively. This is true, depending on your definition of "defensive". Muslims believe that any land that had come under Muslim rule at any point in time in history - belongs to the Muslims, and if it is currently under non-Muslim rule it must be defended against those non-Muslims. That is the definition of "fighting defensively." A bit problematic to say the least.

The Muslim world view is diametrically opposed to the American world view.

We seek to instigate the Muslim community to get up and liberate its land, to fight for the sake of Allah, and to make the Shari'a the highest law, and the word of Allah the highest word of all. - Osama bin Laden, June 10, 1999

***

Democracy is based on the principle that the people are the source of all authority...In other words, the legislator who must be obeyed in a democracy is man, and not Allah. That means that the one who is worshipped and obeyed and deified, from the point of view of legislating and prohibiting, is man, the created, and not Allah. That is the very essence of heresy and polytheism and error...

Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants, choose any religion he wants, and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah... This is a matter which is patently perverse and false...

Democracy is based on the principal [sic] of 'freedom of expression', no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it.

Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of association and of forming political parties and the like, no matter what the creed, ideas, and ethics of these parties may be... voluntary recognition of the legality of heretical parties implies acquiescence in heresy... Acquiescence in heresy is heresy... - Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, January 23, 2005

***

Democracy and parliaments, my brothers, are from the religion and desires of infidels... Democracy means the rule of the people... which means that who is to be obeyed and worshipped is not Allah. - Abu Maysara, March 2, 2005 (The World According to Al Qaeda by Brad K. Berner)

With this understanding behind us we can better understand the current situation as a Clash of Cultures. Democracy versus Muslim theocracy - Sha'ria Law.

Rather than attempt to appease those who violently disagree with the freedoms we take for granted, the United States must stand firm against them. These are the terrorists and rogue states that support them. They cannot and must not be negotiated with. The United States must support those countries that believe in individual freedoms and democracy. This includes the State of Israel.

While Israel is considered a "Jewish" state, it is also clearly a democracy - representing both Jews and Arabs in its parliament. Freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion are guaranteed to all.

The United States must stand strong with all democracies in this Clash of Cultures, and not sell our allies short in order to placate Muslim sensibilities. Israel is at the forefront of this Clash; a country attempting to create a balance of security needs and individual freedoms. There is much the US could learn from Israel as we have begun to realize in our post-9/11 world.

It's time for the United States to treat Israel as an equal - rather than as footnote in the anti-Communist strategies of the 1980s. Those days are over. Welcome to the War for Democracy.

Does the Jewish Vote Matter?

Chart: Jewish Vote 1972 -2008 | NJDC

If you are a Jewish liberal/Democrat -- you don't count. That is, if you think that Israel is important.

Jews range between 1.7% and 2.2% of the United States' population, with the largest number focused in New York and California. Jews on a whole are liberal and vote Democratic. This tendency has been going on for a long time. The problem with this is that the Democratic Party has no reason to "prove" themselves to their Jewish constituents. Familiarity breeds contempt. We see this clearly with our current President and his administration.

We've seen how Vice-President Joe Biden had an issue with 1600 Jewish homes being built in Jerusalem - the 3000 year old capital of Israel.

We've seen how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton escalated tension between allies by having a 45 minute hissy fit on the phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

We then saw President Barack Obama insult Prime Minister Netanyahu to his face by refusing a photo-op for the media and leaving Netanyahu to stew for an hour as Obama went to eat dinner with his family.

Is this how we treat an ally? Is this how we treat the constituents that believe in the special relationship between our two countries?

Even Abe Foxman, left-leaning head of the ADL was disturbed by this treatment.

"We are shocked and stunned at the Administration's tone and public dressing down of Israel," Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman said in a statement. "We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States."

In fact we know that Obama does not concern himself with the Jewish voter. Obama spokesman, Robert Gibbs, related an instance where he was sitting in on a meeting related to the crisis with Israel.

He [Gibbs] did chime in during last month's escalating tensions with Israel, if only to make sure the president understood the "conventional wisdom" promoted in the media, that Obama's toughness with Likud hard-liners would potentially erode his domestic Jewish support. "For a lot of reasons, he would discount that," Gibbs said, referring to the president.

In other words, Obama is going to do whatever he wants without consideration for the voting block that placed 80% of it's support behind him. Amazing.

The bizarre concept of Obama attempting to force a "regime change" has been noted, evidenced by the attitude toward Netanyahu - publicly shaming him in front of the world.

There's a widespread view -- almost a conviction in Washington these days -- that Netanyahu just isn't capable of reaching a deal, and that the Palestinians and Arabs will never trust him. So why expend months of effort starting a process with Netanyahu that you can't possibly conclude with him?

The remedy, if regime change is the goal, is to hang tough on settlements, create conditions for starting negotiations that are reasonable but that Netanyahu's coalition can't accept, and not-so-subtly suggest that Netanyahu can't be a real partner in a peace process. The administration's recent leak that it's considering putting out its own peace plan will only further undermine any chance of partnership.

Sooner or later, the thinking goes, it would become clear in Israel that the prime minister can't manage the nation's most important relationship, and that he is putting settlements above Israeli security at a time when the Iranian threat looms large and close ties with the U.S. are more important than ever. The American hope would be that public and political pressure would mount, forcing Netanyahu to broaden his government or even impelling a change at the top.

Reported in today's New York Times is a focus on Obama's shift of focus in the Middle East, even declaring that solving the Israeli-Arab conflict was a

“vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.

This shift, described by administration officials who did not want to be quoted by name when discussing internal discussions, is driving the White House’s urgency to help broker a Middle East peace deal. It increases the likelihood that Mr. Obama, frustrated by the inability of the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to terms, will propose his own parameters for an eventual Palestinian state.

Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

This is a most disturbing statement. Not only is the President considering the United States/Israel relationship as irrelevant as seen by having to "balance support with other American interests"... he is directly linking the safety of American troops to the lack of a peace agreement between the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East. Is this going to bring American Jews the charge of "dual-loyalty"? This is a scary thought and anti-semitism at it's best.

This statement is also buying the Arab narrative of an "occupying Zionist" presence in the Middle East as the basis for all Muslim conflicts hook-line-and sinker. This is a dramatic departure from past American policy.

Of course we know that if Israel were no longer in existence there would be no conflict in the Middle East or around the world because the Arabs are a peace-loving group of people.

Let us not fool ourselves. The Obama administration has dramatically weakened and has undermined Israel's position on the world stage. The results should not surprise us. The UK has recently banned the Western Wall from Israeli tourism advertisements.

... a ruling by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority has taken things to new heights of absurdity. The ASA dealt with a complaint concerning an Israel Government Tourist Office advert that "the photograph featured for Jerusalem was of East Jerusalem" and therefore "the ad misleadingly implied that East Jerusalem was part of the state of Israel."

In other words, the Western Wall is no longer an accepted part of the Jewish state after 3000 years.

Israel has gone over and above to prove themselves as peace-makers in the face of terrorism. All the actions - withdrawing from Gaza, dislocating citizens to create a Jew-free zone... are considered null and void as far as Obama is concerned.

Obama will be proposing his own solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict. Don't forget that Samantha Powers is a foreign policy advisor to the president. Powers who has compared Israel's treatment of Arabs to the the massacre in Rwanda - even suggesting that Israel be left out of any decision making process.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic …. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention, which, very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.

Is this where we are headed? Unilateral intervention by the United States in the Israel-Arab conflict?

Watching as this administration singlehandedly undermines Israel in the world's eyes, weakening it's support of a democracy that has wholeheartedly stood behind the United States over the last 62 years, an administration that is actively questioning Jewish loyalty during a time of war -- I must ask Jews who vote for the Democratic Party... why? Your support of the Democratic Party has not brought security to Israel or to Jews around the world, rather just the opposite (anti-semitism has doubled everywhere since Israel is seen as weak).

Please reconsider your support. The Jewish vote should not be taken for granted.

Other worthwhile reading/watching:
Never Again Should We Be Silent - by Ed Koch, former Democratic mayor of NYC

“I believe the Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus in order to please the Muslim nations.” - Ed Koch television interview

Israel or Terrorists - Investor's Business Daily editorial

The Solace of Poor U.S.-Israel Relations - by Daniel Pipes

Letter to President Obama - by Ronald S. Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress

Bipartisan House Letter - to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with 327 signatures

Does Israel have a Plan B?

I believe that all countries should do what is in the best interest of their respective countries.

I expect that the United States should do what is best for the United States and her citizens. (I don't see this happening at the moment, but that's an article for the future).

I also expect that Israel should do what is best for Israel and her citizens.

Israel and the United States have been allies since Israel's founding in 1948, but there have even been times over the course of time that Israel and the U.S. have not seen eye to eye. These moments have generally occurred when Israel decided to defend herself and those living in the country.

1956 - Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, an important trade waterway in the Middle East. In a joint effort, Israel, Great Britian and France invaded Egypt and took the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza. Israel was condemned by President Eisenhower and had aid threatened to be withheld if Israel didn't withdraw. They did.

1973 - The Yom Kippur War. Israel was attacked by the surrounding Arab countries on one of the holiest days of the Jewish calendar. The battle was not going well when Israel asked the U.S. for help.

Just days after Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on the holiest day of the Jewish year (Oct. 6, 1973), Israel urgently needed more tanks, planes and ammunition, its leaders argued. But 25 years ago, at the height of the Yom Kippur War, the White House responded that it would study the request.

Secretary of State Kissinger waited six days before granting the request. In his words: "let Israel come out ahead, but let them bleed."

1975 - President Ford threatened to re-evaluate the U.S.- Israel relationship if Israel did not pull out of the Sinai Peninsula.

1981 - U.S. condemned Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear factory in Osirak.

1982 - President Reagan forced Israel's Prime Minister Begin into a ceasefire in Lebanon.

We know that President H.W. Bush's administration was not especially friendly to Israel.

President Bill Clinton was known as being "very friendly" toward the Jewish state. This friendship lead to many "piece" agreements where Israel gave away much and received little.

President George W. Bush was probably the most open in his support of Israel. Bush went on to speak about the bond between the United States and Israel.

"Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it," Bush told a special session of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, in Jerusalem.

"Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you," Bush added.

And now we have our current President Obama - who is known to have become "livid" when he heard about the new Jewish homes being built in Jerusalem.

If the basic reasoning for any government's existence is to protect its citizenry - and it is being forced into a situation where they are unable to defend those citizens... that government finds itself in an untenable situation.

Israel and the United States have been allies since 1948 - but not without some friction. Taking a walk through American-Israeli relations - I would suggest that Israel had better have a Plan B. A plan that takes into account the weakening of ties of the two countries.

This is a sad moment for Jews all around the world. A moment where we realize that the bonds that bind these two countries together are not "unbreakable", and that this may be the time for Israel to realize that it's time to stand on her own without the strings attaching her to the United States. There may be presidents that see the importance of that connection... and there may be presidents that do not. Israel cannot afford to be dependent on a country that may or may not see the vital importance of the relationship.

It's time for Israel to go to Plan B.

Peace, Peace... there is no Peace

Last week when Vice-President Biden was in Israel trying to re-start the "piece" talks, the Israeli government happened to announce the building of 1600 new homes in a religious neighborhood called Ramat Shlomo - established by peace-nik Yitzchak Rabin. Biden took this opportune time to condemn the Jewish state for such actions.

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem," Biden said.

The American vice president added that the

"substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I've had here in Israel."

"We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them," Biden said...

This is an incredible statement in many ways, but we'll focus on two because I don't have all day.

Number One: Jerusalem has never been on the negotiating table. The only reason there is free access to any of the religious sites in Jerusalem is because Israel has control over them. If they were under the "protection" of the Arabs - there would be no free access, and in a worse case scenario destroyed. (The Tomb of Joseph in Schem/Nablus was destroyed when handed over to the Arabs under a "piece" agreement and replaced with a mosque.)

Number Two: These 1600 homes are the "kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now" and is counter to building "an atmosphere to support negotiations". Blah, blah blah. That's right, Jews building homes in Jerusalem undermines trust. Is that right? You know what undermines "trust" and is counter to building the right "atmosphere"? Rockets.

Rockets have continuously been raining on southern Israel. No one bothers to report a favorite daily activity by Hamas - but shockingly enough - one of the rockets happened to murder a Thai worker the other day. Does Biden care? No.

Let's not only pin the "trust" issue on Hamas - we can look over at the Palestinian Authority (the moderates) and see what they have done to create trust and a good "atmosphere" for peace.

Could it be the dedication of a town square of in El-Bireh (near the friendly city of Ramallah) for Dalal Mughrabi and her attack on a civilian bus - murdering 37 innocents...

including Liat Gal-On, age 6, and Illan Hohman, age 3, Galit Ankwa, age 2, Moti Zit, age 9, and six other children, while wounding 73 other civilians. An attack incidentally that remains the deadliest of all the terror attacks in Israel's history.

A heartwarming interview with Mughrabi's sister - who calls her a "source of pride for Palestinian women", along with Mughrabi's letter explaining her "martyrdom" played on PA television on March 11, 2010 commemorating the massacre. A worthwhile watch. Yes, these are our "peace" partners. I feel better already.

* Never mind the other everyday attacks on the roads in Judea/Samaria (West Bank) that could be thwarted by the "moderate" PA. Just the other day a man and his nine-month old baby had their car firebombed, but never mind.

* Never mind the indoctrination aimed at children to become "martyrs".

* Never mind the riots and mayhem begun by the PA as a way of stopping Israel from declaring the Cave of Machpela/Cave of the Patriarchs (Hebron) and Tomb of Rachel (Bethlehem) as Jewish Heritage sites.

* Never mind the rock throwing off the top of the Western Wall onto worshippers as the result of the rededication of the Hurva Synagogue (destroyed by the Jordanian army in 1948 when the city was split) located in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.

Shut up Biden. Don't speak these words of "peace" and "trust" while allowing murders to get away with the blood on their hands. Peace, peace... there is no peace. This is war.