Doc's Talk: Israel – No Longer an Ally of the U.S.?

Monday, March 22, 2010

Israel – No Longer an Ally of the U.S.?

Gadi Adelman

In 2008 I had more arguments with friends and members of my own family over the Obama team than I care to remember. To this day, I am not allowed even to discuss Washington with my own family. This is their choice (or demand) and I attempt to abide by it. My biggest problem (and I had many being the only conservative in the family) was that I said this administration would be a disaster for Israel. Sometimes, I hate being right. According to several sources in Israel as well as reports in the media both here and in Israel (harder to find them here given the media outlook on Israel here in the States) this past Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a four-point ultimatum to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo. Ramat Shlomo, for those who are unaware, is in northern Jerusalem just over the green line on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. It was built in 1996 and as of the year 2000 had a population of 18,000. The argument is due to Israel's decision to construction an additional 1,600 apartments.

Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967.

Third, Israel must make some sort of good faith gesture to the Palestinians to show them they want peace. The U.S. suggestion for this gesture is so absurd that I myself have trouble believing it. The Obama administration suggests that Israel release hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons.

Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem. Allow me to explain here what the partition of Jerusalem would mean. This “partition” would include Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than a half million Israelis. Also, Israel must agree to the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the so-called “right of return.”Again, here I must digress for a brief explanation. The “right of return” asserts that Palestinian refugees, both first-generation refugees and their descendants, have a right to return to the property they left or which they were forced to leave in the former British Mandate of Palestine (currently Israel and Palestinian territories), as part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, a result of the 1948 Palestine War and due to the 1967 Six-Day war. According to the numbers available the estimated number of Palestinian refugees, including both first-generation refugees and their descendants, exceeds 4 million. The other problem is there is no way of knowing who truly is and is not a Palestinian descendent. Anyone, including radicals and terrorists can just show up and claim to be Palestinian. Lastly, Israel must agree to Obama administration-mediated negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel has always maintained that any substantive discussions can only be conducted in direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials.
If Israel does not accept all four U.S. demands in full and the administration keeps its word, then they will boycott Netanyahu and all of his senior ministers. For example, this means that if Netanyahu comes to Washington next week as scheduled for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, none of the senior administration officials will meet with him.

Their newest demands come after months of American pressure that eventually coerced Netanyahu into announcing his support for a 10-month ban on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. No previous Israeli government had ever been asked to make such a concession.

I must remind people of something of extreme importance that proves that land for peace is not what this has ever been about. Let’s put aside the fact that Hamas, the elected leadership of Gaza, has yet to remove from its charter that it rejects Israel’s right to exist and remains doctrinally committed to its destruction, yet Israel should “make peace” with them. Let’s forget the unilateral pullout of Gaza by Israel on September 12, 2005, which included the eviction of 9,000 Israeli citizens living in 21 settlements and the dismantling of numerous Israel Defense Forces (IDF) installations and an industrial zone; the desecration of the synagogue’s by the Muslim population afterwards and that the rocket attacks continued by the thousands against Israeli citizens and still continues today. Let’s pretend that Hamas never kidnapped the 19-year-old Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, on June 26th, 2006, now having held him in captivity for almost four years, a total of 1,366 days as of today.

Putting all the above mentioned aside, let’s look back at the Camp David meeting in 2000 between President Clinton, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount. According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference. The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them. Arafat walked away from the table and said no deal. The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada (Holy war) that began in September 2000 and the violence of that uprising continued into 2005 despite cease-fire vows from Arab-Palestinian leaders. The wave of violence was marked by almost daily suicide bombings of Israeli targets, including markets, restaurants, buses, and other public places killing over 1,000 Israelis, as well as 64 foreign citizens including both military and civilian.

So, what is the administration trying to accomplish by giving an ultimatum to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

Caroline Glick, the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, Israel’s English newspaper, gave five possible reasons. She cites the Obama administration’s Iran policy and its stance on Netanyahu’s government, among other things. I find it interesting that such a viewpoint would be coming from a liberal Israeli newspaper; however I must admit that one or more of these explanations are plausible. But that still leaves the bigger question: Why should America really care about Israel?

From an economic standpoint, Israel is worth billions to the U.S. Israel is second only to America in the number of companies listed on NASDAQ, and Economist magazine says that Israel attracts twice the number of venture-capital (VC) investments as the whole of Europe. Throughout the cold war and even today the United States of America relies on Israel for several parts of its national security. If Russia or China (and possibly Iran in the not to distant future) were to ever launch a first strike against the U.S., because of Israel’s proximity to the afore mentioned countries, and being the only true ally the U.S. has in the region, Israel would be able to warn the U.S. long before America’s elaborate radar systems even had a clue of a pending attack. The Mossad, (Israel’s version of our CIA) works closely with the U.S. on a regular basis providing both intelligence and training on Americas counter terrorism and homeland security. American military pilots train both here in the US and in Israel with Israeli pilots who are arguably the best trained in the world today. A multitude of Israeli weapons are purchased and used by the U.S. military, including Israeli UAV’s (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) currently in use in Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention the amount of American weapons which Israel enhanced and improved upon and then gladly gives back to the U.S. with instruction on how it made them better. The Patriot missile system, for example, is just one of many weapons systems that Israel has improved upon.

With all that is currently happening in the Middle East today, does one really even need to ask why we need a country such as Israel to remain an ally? The way that the Obama administration is treating, or better yet, mistreating Israel, while playing “make nice” to the likes of Ahmadinejad, as well as other terror supporting nations, I have to wonder how long Netanyahu and the people of Israel will put up with this before they throw in the towel. Many countries throughout the world already have a poor view and dislike towards the United States and its people. Certainly all the countries in the Middle East are not are allies, except for Israel – for now.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He is currently writing his first book, "Terrorism; Understanding the Threat". He can be reached through his website http://gadiadelman.com

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk