Barack Obama and the Jews Part I

Tuesday, July 28, 2009
BARACK OBAMA AND THE JEWS

Barack Obama and the Jews Part 1

It’s said that to maintain power one must be trusted by his friends and feared by his enemies. We are now in an exercise to determine if that is an absolute truth. The current stand-off between the Obama administration and the State of Israel may be a test of this adage. The long standing friendly relationship between Israel and the United States has not been an even one, but at this moment it is more than strained. The level of Israeli trust in the Obama administration is at its lowest point (6%) since the relationship with the U.S. began to develop after the 1967 Six Day War.

In the early years of the States’ reconstitution, we remember that President Harry Truman was strong and decisive in recognizing the State immediately after its Declaration of Independence. He followed immediately with an arms embargo fully aware that the tiny country would be attacked by seven Arab countries, since the Soviets were supplying the Arabs with whatever they wanted, it was in effect, an embargo only on Israel. In desperate straits, Israel found a way; buying rifles from Czechoslovakia, with permission from Russia, not withstanding that Russia was solidly supporting the Arabs. France, in the nick of time, sold the nascent state mystere jets and the Zionists prevailed with no help from the U.S.

In October 1955, Egypt’s closure of the Straits of Tiran, an act of war in International law, was responded to with a few raised eyebrows, but the international community simply looked on even with the awareness that this move was a break in International law while crippling Israeli shipping. Only in July of 1956 when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, owned by the French and the British, was there an uproar, if only from the owners. The French and the British then came to Israel for help in correcting this illegal act. Israel agreed, as this was an additional blow to Israel’s security and shipping. Immediately after the success of the Israel-British-French success in capturing the Canal, the United States, in a fit of pique over not being informed of the operation put all its diplomatic efforts into demanding that all three countries withdraw and return to the status quo. The British withdrew quickly with virtually no consideration of its partners in this venture. Once they withdrew, the French followed, leaving Israel holding the bag. Israel at this point had no choice but to withdraw, no negotiation occurred. Lesson for Israel: even the most engaged ally cannot be trusted when the chips are down.
President Lyndon Johnson, probably the most emotionally supportive President Israel has worked with, was unable to help in the run up to the Six Day War in 1967. Congress and the American people were unwilling to get involved in any foreign entanglements in their drive to disengage from the Vietnam War. While Johnson was verbally supportive there was little he was able to do in supplying arms or other support. He was relieved to receive American intelligence estimates of the overall situation that indicated Israel would win handily.

While Johnson was emotional in his support of Israel, Richard Nixon was practical in looking at cold, hard facts. The immense losses to Israel in blood and resources in 1973 were of concern but the interest of the Nixon administration centered on the Soviet relationship with the Egyptians and the Syrians. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made an equally unemotional evaluation in his recommendation to help Israel with arms supplies. At the time the Cold War was the most important issue to the Nixon administration, certainly not Israel. Not allowing a victory by Russia’s’ allies was strategically important. Nixon being distracted by the Watergate scandal allowed Kissinger to take the lead and eventually Israel turned the war around. The Arabs, however were unforgiving and cut off oil supplies to the U.S. This was an unexpected turn, creating the most serious gas shortage since WWII. Oil became among the most important issues for all American politicians after this politically unfortunate event. Israel without oil or any natural resources to fill the gap left by the boycott had few cards in her hands.

The U.S. has opposed Israel many times, even threatening arms embargoes and military sanctions. Think of President Kennedy’s fierce opposition to Israel building a nuclear reactor, and the denunciation from the U.S as well as many other countries for bombing Osirak (Iraq's nuclear reactor), the demand from the U.S. to not strike first in the days preceding the Yom Kippur War, a pressure that cost Israel nearly 3000 lives and over 7,000 wounded. In each case Israel’s leaders made the decision they thought best for Israel’s security and in each case the country survived and thrived. In any relationship the junior partner cannot be the servant of the senior partner, by bowing to the wishes of the U.S. we make ourselves the junior partner, but are we? How many Israeli and Arab lives could have been saved if Israel had acted without the permission of the U.S.?

Certainly the three billion dollars of U.S. military aid are important, but how would we manage without them? This is less than 1% of Israel’s total budget; we are required to spend 75% on American products. This is leveraged to keep Israel out of competitive bidding on sales of products to other countries, in which American companies are also bidding.*(see below) Israel benefits from a strong relationship with the U.S. but when administrations change so might the relationship and as we are not the 51st state, we must be prepared. We are an independent sovereign state which is obligated to meet the needs of our own people first, not the wishes of a foreign power no matter how powerful.

We can say much more about the U.S.—Israel relationship especially the contributions to the U.S. from Israel. That is for another blog. The point here is that allies for our little country have not had a record of dependability even so, we have continually found a way to not only survive but to thrive and build, continuing to integrate refugees and new immigrants even though in 61 years there has not been a moment in time to relax from Arab violence against us.
The decision of Barack Obama to flip the relationship with Israel from a solid if argumentative one is obvious. Starting with the ambush of Prime Minister Netanyahu in Washington and the very public demands on Israel without negotiation or warning was shocking to Israelis. Although Israel was accustomed to the European Union telling Israel what its policies should be on issues of defense, diplomacy and even what kind of government it should have, it was new coming from the U.S. Past pressures had been quiet and behind the scenes. After the Cairo speech President Obama left no doubt his goal was a warm and loving relationship with the Islamic world and if that didn’t work for Israel well Israel is expendable. We have kept our face towards Jerusalem for two thousand years and I don’t expect that to change, rarely have the Jewish people been able to feel safe and secure.
It seems this administration is moving in the direction of every European country in saying “Israel has a right to defend herself”, until she does, then the true feelings come out in accusations from “disproportion” to “war crimes”. It is obvious that the Arab world has many more people, much more wealth and most importantly large oil reserves. The continual question that comes up in discussing this turn of events is why is Obama so adamant about “settlements”? The only logical answer is that “settlements” are one of two non-negotiable issues, first, “Jews should be allowed to live where they choose” as Arabs are allowed to live wherever they choose in Israel, not allowing Jews to live among Arabs is the definition of racism, Jews have been subject to racism enough to recognize it, secondly, the division of Jerusalem is non-negotiable. No Israeli government can stand while agreeing to divide Jerusalem. Picking out non-negotiable issues, demanding from Israel what she cannot give, while asking nothing from her opponents sounds like the Obama administration throwing down the gauntlet. A Nationalist government was elected by the Israeli people because they are sick of war but can find no peace partner.
To stand up vigorously to the overthrow of the unconsitiutional Honduran government and at the same time tell Israel its democratically elected government is not satisfactory to the U.S. and should be changed is not a demand typical of allies. The weak response to Iran’s undemocratic process, while making public demands of Israel that are simply not possible to fulfill fits into the strategy of attempting to win the affection of the Muslim world, even at Israel’s expense. The U.S. must act in its own interest as all nations, including Israel, must. The road the President is taking is sure to fail as it did when a previous President, Jimmy Carter, tried that path.

Israel must do what it can, without damaging itself, to hold together a good relationship with the U.S. but also she must look for other partners. Many nations want to do business with Israel and she should pursue those allies. Israel today is under perhaps the greatest existential threat since 1948 and she must stand up for her own best interests. This is why the Israeli electorate voted for a decidedly nationalist government, having confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s strong leadership, and with the backing of the cabinet he has chosen Israel will, as a country, exercise the creativity, industriousness and courage necessary to continue to build this miraculous work that is the State of Israel.

*. Pentagon Halts Israeli Fighter Jet Bid, US a Rival on Tender (Arutz Sheva, 2009–07–06) --- by Malkah Fleisher
A scandal has arisen out of the United States military establishment after Pentagon pressure on Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to withdraw from a massive aircraft tender for the Indian Air Force leaves competing American aerospace companies in prime position to win it.On the table: a $12 billion Indian Ministry of Defense tender for 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) for the Indian Air Force.In a bid to win the tender, IAI was offered a partnership with Sweden's Saab AB to jointly develop an advanced model of the JAS-39 Gripen jet fighter. Israel was to build the electronic systems for the craft, including communications, electronic warfare and radar systems.The Pentagon contacted Israel's Ministry of Defense, ordering them to force IAI out of contention, citing concerns that Israel would integrate American technology into the fighter jets.However, two of the remaining four bidders are American companies, leaving Israeli officials speculating that the actual reason for the demand was America's interest in winning the bid without having to compete by lowering prices, according to Israeli officials quoted in Israeli mediaLockheed Martin's F-16 and Boeing's F-18 Hornet are still in the running, as well as Russia's MiG-35 and the UK's BAE Eurofighter.The United States has a history of intervening to thwart Israeli military contracts, to America's benefit. Last summer, Israel's defense establishment backed down from a $500 million Turkish tank tender in order not to compete with the Americans.In 2006, the IAI lost a $2 billion South Korean Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) tender after the US imposed technological and commercial restrictions, which prevented Israel from meeting the terms of the tender.In 2003, the US opposed a $1 billion AWACS contract between Israel and India, citing India's stance against the US war in Iraq. The US offered Israel $1 billion in US military goods to back down from the agreement. However, Israeli officials speculated that the US may have opposed the deal for commercial reasonspART 1