I’ve always been amazed that anyone
thought the United States would ever act against the Iranian nuclear
threat. There was never any chance that such a thing would happen. The
United States would never go to war with tens of millions of people.
Moreover, there was never any chance the United States would let Israel “attack” Iran.
In a Huffington Post article by Steven Strauss, the author quotes Netanyahu:
“‘I believe that we can now say that
Israel has reached childhood’s end, that it has matured enough to begin
approaching a state of self-reliance… We are going to achieve economic
independence [from the United States].’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu to a Joint Session of the United States Congress – Washington
D.C., July 10, 1996 (Source: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs).”
Unfortunately, today, almost 20 years
later, this is not a fair statement to quote. Strauss continues: “In
1997, Israel received $3.1 billion in aid from the U.S. In 2012, Israel was still receiving $3.1 billion annually in U.S. aid.”
This, however, is not an appropriate
comparison today. Let us look at the current situation: Egypt will
receive $2 billion in U.S. aid; Saudi Arabia will receive military aid
as well as the anti-Asad Syrian rebels; Turkey will receive billions of
dollars and probably military equipment. Moreover, the United States and
Europe will also reach out to Iran, and Hizballah and Syria will
receive aid from Iran. In addition, the Palestinians have not made the
least bit of commitment on a two-state solution. In other words, only
Israel would lose. And this is the childhood’s end?
Strauss further notes, “Israel has
become an affluent and developed country that can afford to pay for its
own defense.” But the point is that other hostile countries will be
receiving more while Israel will get the same amount.
He continues, “… Israel has a well
developed economy in other ways.” But again, Israel will be placed at
much more of a disadvantage.
The article’s claim, “Other countries/programs could better use this aid money,” does not state the reality.
“Even domestically, the aid that goes
to Israel could be useful. Detroit is bankrupt, and our Congress is
cutting back on food stamps, and making other painful budget cuts.”
Again, the United States does not face an immediate threat from its
neighbors, while Israel does. Moreover, this is shockingly implying that
Israel is stealing money from poor people in the United States.
In other words, this is not equivalent.
“Israel and the United States have
increasingly different visions about the future of the Middle East.” But
again, so what? This is absolutely irrelevant.
“A major (bipartisan) goal of the
United States has been the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.” Once again, this is a policy that is impossible, but the
United States is going to try to force it on Israel anyway.
Note that the less security the United
States and the West provide to Israel, the more difficult it makes it
to secure or promote a desirable two-state solution. Strauss adds,
“However, the current Israeli government is clearly not committed to the
U.S. vision, and has done everything possible to sabotage American
efforts.”
The problem with this last point is
that the Palestinians have always tried to sabotage this. If this
concept hasn’t gotten across in a quarter century, I can’t imagine when
it will get across.
The current Israeli government has
tried for many years to achieve a two-state solution and has made many
concessions. And if Kerry can’t take Israel’s side on this issue, then I
can’t imagine how decades of U.S. policy has been carried out. To say
that the Israeli government is not committed is a fully hostile
statement.
This claims Israeli settlement and not Palestinian intransigence has blocked the peace process.
Note that the author of this article
has “distinguished” credentials: “Steven Strauss is an adjunct lecturer
in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.”
Yet if this is what the U.S.
government understands, it will end badly. Moreover, the issue of Iran
and nuclear weapons is not the important point; rather, it is the
transformation of the U.S. Middle East position that is significant. I
do not believe there is any chance Iran will use nuclear weapons. The
problem is that this is reversal of the U.S. policy. In other words, it
is like going back to 1948 and opposing partition.
Finally, what this is all about is
money and greed. Many European countries are drooling about the money to
be made. For example, Vittorio Da Rold writes (Il Sole 24 ore), “Italian
SMEs are hoping for a rapid agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue in
order to return as soon as possible to trade without limits with Tehran
and the rich Iranian market in hopes of finding new markets in a time
when the European market flirts with deflation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment