If they are such good friends, why are they so hostile? Part 1

If they are such good friends, why are they so hostile? Part 1

Time and again one hears about the US-Israel friendship. Indeed, the US does lend Israel its support, diplomatic as well as financial, but not for one minute should we permit ourselves to forget the overall picture.

In this piece, (i) first I cite a list of major hostile US steps against Israel, as given by an historian, and then (ii) I proceed to cite and document specific recent examples. The present Part 1 addresses point (i); tomorrow's installment will begin to cover point (ii).

I have posted articles on the US hostility towards Israel in the past: see IsraPundit articles of August 13, 2004, August 12, 2004, September 6, 2003, August 12, 2003, July 27, 2003, July 9, 2003. The material in this article is in addition to that given in the foregoing pieces.

The following overall picture is portrayed by historian Niall Ferguson in his book:

Niall Ferguson. Colossus - the Price of America's Empire. New York: Penguin, 2004.

Niall Ferguson is "Professor of Financial History and the...New York University. He is also a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University".

Ferguson mentions 18 major hostile US steps against Israel from 1948 to 1991; I have added the numbers 1 to 18 (which are not in the book, of course), for easy reference. I have to underscore that Ferguson's list only includes major items, and many are missing (I count on IsraPundit to supplement the list via comments). Nor does Ferguson's list cover the Clinton's era, during which he and his side kick Dennis Ross went further than any other president in coercing Israel. Of course, Bush has proved the worst of all: his "vision" of a PLO state besides Israel, which Bush is pursuing with the determination of a crusader, will mete out a calamity on Israel as well as on the West in general - just as Munich, September 30, 1938 did.

With this introduction, here is Ferguson list:

What is less frequently noticed is how often Israel and the United States have disagreed.

(1) Truman's support for Israel did not extend to military assistance, for example.

(2) Dulles sus­pended aid to Israel on more than one occasion.

(3) The United States was hostile when Israel occupied Sinai and the Gaza Strip in 1956, insisting that the Israelis withdraw.

(4) It [the US - ed.] failed to ensure freedom of passage for Israeli shipping through the Strait of Titan on the eve of the Six-Day War, de­spite having pledged to do so at the United Nations.

(5) Later the United States favored the internationalization of Jerusalem and

(6) expressed criticism of the Israeli policy of colonization in the territories captured from the Arabs in 1967. [p. 110]

(7) As containment gave way to detente, neither superpower relished the prospect of another Arab-Israeli war. When it came in 1973, the Americans offered support to Israel only after it was clear that the Russians were helping the other side; in both cases as­sistance entitled the superpowers to press for a cease-fire. [p. 112]

(8) In December 1981, when Israel decided to alter the status of the Golan Heights by bringing the area under its own law, jurisdiction and administration, the United States supported a UN resolution condemning this action.

(9) When Israel invaded Lebanon seven months later, the United States contributed to the peacekeeping force that was deployed to prevent an escalation of the conflict...

10 [T]he Israelis tenaciously resisted American pressure to negotiate with the Palestinians. [p. 114]

Ferguson then continues to remind us that

(11) in the wake of Sabra and Shatilla, "amid fierce international condemnation -- in which the United States joined -- UN peacekeepers were again deployed" [p. 123].

In subsequent years,

(12) With every passing year, as the settlement of the occupied territories proceeded (by 1983 there were nearly thirty thousand Jewish settlers) and as Palestinians living there resorted to violence, a return to the status quo ante became harder to imagine. The Americans protested about the policy of settlement and

(13) about the use of live ammunition against stone-throwing Palestinians... [p. 115]

(14) Which brings us to the 1990 war against Iraq:
The Bush administration took the view that Israel should not serve as a center of military operations against Iraq--not even for supply, storage or medical purposes. When Saddam fired Scud missiles at Tel Aviv, in an effort to cast himself as the archenemy of Zionism, the Americans worked energetically to prevent any Israeli retaliation.

(15) Moreover, in the wake of Desert Storm, Bush sought to apply pressure on Israel, in the hope of breaking the deadlock in the negotiations over the Palestinian question. In doing so, he reasserted the American conviction that any peace "must be grounded in the United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of territory for peace.

(16) Two months later Secretary of State James Baker remarked pointedly that he knew of no "bigger obsta­cle to peace than the settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an enhanced pace."

(17) American loan guarantees worth ten billion dol­lars were allowed to lapse when the Israelis refused to accept conditions the United States attached to them.

(18) After 1991 American aid to Israel was effectively frozen and in real terms declined. [p. 138]

To be continued.

Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at December 28, 2004 08:58 AM


Comments

1. BobW [TypeKey Profile Page] said:

Subject: "The Overall Picture"

Friendship does not govern international relations and foreign affairs. The key word is "interests". Note that the key word is NOT "values". Again; "interests".


US Undersecretary of State Joseph Sisco to Israeli author Shmuel Katz in 1989:
"I want to assure you, Mt Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us."

Israel functions both as a US garrison and NAFTA colony. NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement is somewhat too much to explain here as to the mechanisms. Will only mention that a few Jewish Israelis greatly benefit from this.

Paul Ferguson is a good financial historian.However, there is more to international relations and foreign affairs than finance alone.

Re # 1; The name "Truman" is mischaracterized. Item 1. cannot be deemed a "major hostile step". The Truman administration, along with other power centers in the US were split on a new state of Israel. Eg, the First Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal was against it. (So was Martin Buber in Europe). There were MANY (so-called) "Jewish leaders" who were against the establishment of a new Israel. "Give 'em hell, Harry" Truman goes in the plus column even if he joins the rest of humanity in not having a pure record.

Re # 3' The US was also hostile to the UK and France. Let's be open and fair about this.Sinai nearly started a nuclear war. It was Great Power politics and Israel continued as a nation into 1957.

Re # 9; The US did have a peace-keeping force in Lebannon in '82. It was also a combat force - engaged in combat with Syrian forces - amongst others.

Re # 14; Sad but understandable. Ferguson is simplifying too much.

A non-military example needed for the list-although I'll still object even if I provide the examples-is the AWACS sale and lease of 12 AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia - along with other military and non-military material in the overall package. This non-military example must be studied.

Another non-military example for the list; The Israeli PHALCON sales offer to PR China.The general press flavored this as a military sale story. It wasn't. It's an economic sale. Israel would have displaced US sales to China.

When we have a Jewish, pro-Israel organization in place (When; not if.) these matters can be reviewed and properly responded to. The current situation reminds me of an old Stock Market joke: "You can be a bull or you can be a bear, but you cannot be a pig."

Of the Issacharites, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times, to determine how Israel should act. I Chronicles 12:33

NOTE: The Joseph Sisco quote provided by Prof Paul Eidelberg of Jerusalem, Israel.

Kol tuv,
BobW

Posted by: BobW [TypeKey Profile Page] on December 28, 2004 05:22 AM

2. bunuel said:

The question Israel has to wrestle with is: are there any other friends, even so-so good?

Posted by: bunuel on December 28, 2004 10:59 AM

3. Bess said:

There is another factor here I think.Us as an asembly of citizens is friendly to Israel--as a goverment --nope. Thing is--why would you join a fight on the side of people that are wanting to loose? From it's beginning Israel had no intention or balls to defend it's citizens,no balls to stand up for it's rights--it's a dead country--dying a slow death.
Since the onset of that country it was a corrupt,gutless political anymal--my concern now is about the jews that are living in it--I couldn't care less about Israel and judaism if I tried--both of them are more than willing to sacrifice jewish women and children for their own goals.

Posted by: Bess on December 28, 2004 11:47 AM

4. Jerusalem Posts [TypeKey Profile Page] said:

America has been selling the latest in military technology to Jordan and Egypt, to the tune of billions (tanks, fighter jets, warheads, etc), but there's no war in sight... (yet).

And Bush reneged on a promise to keep Saudi fighter planes away from Israel's range... they're now based in Tabuk, near Eilat... AND the Saudis will allow every Muslim Saudi nationality - except the Palestinians.... also they're funding part of the Intifada!

America has recently armed Oman too....

From where I'm standing, the Arab League are ready for an all out with with Israel in the not too distant future, and America has given them a nod and a wink!

After all, Israel has no oil to bargain with - and America also takes the best of Israeli military technology to give to her enemies the Arabs!

America has shown her true colours in her dealings with AIPAC and other similar cases - in other words, the US sees Israel as a hostile nation and NOT a friend!

Posted by: Jerusalem Posts [TypeKey Profile Page] on December 28, 2004 06:47 PM

5. Bess said:

Israel could have had oil if it had balls--remember the desert with oil given back to Egypt for nothing after 67 war? The point is --and belive me it pains me to admit it--israel is populated by a couple of distink groups--a) traitoraus socialist aholes--the so called israelies that have no problem watching their women and children die day after day since the beggining of the country and will sell off anyone of their own for a quater,b)religious types that are waiting for messiah and hold their purity above lives of their women and children and c)actual humans--few jews that get slaughtered daily cause their goverment belives they don't deserve to be protected.
The point is--Israel is not a country to protect the jews and give them home--it's a trap.If the settlers have any brains they should take their payments and move to the US.

Posted by: Bess on December 28, 2004 07:29 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)