AmericansSUNDAY, MARCH 14, 2010
Barack Obama , Jerusalem and the Jews- The view from Jerusalem
Many periods of Israel and USA relations have been rocky, but never hostile to the degree we see today. (see the below posting Barack Obama and the Jews July 28,2009). After watching the news in the USA, Europe and here in Israel, I am seeing a situation that could seriously deteriorate in one of two ways. Both are unfortunate, but not fatal for this little country, but are likely to be very damaging to the world in general. The Obama adminstration is encouraging reckless and irresponsible behaviour on the part of the Palestinians and the Jihadists, particularly Hamas (which is currently coalescing with Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and Hezbollah. Weakening the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is their fondest dream and they already believe it is happening, so they join the strategy of the Palestinian Authority thinking they just have to wait until the U.S. delivers Israel into their hands. What better way to achieve their goals than taking no risk, just sitting back and waiting for the expected delivery. The Israel-US relationship could actually break temporarily, and it would be temporary because of the affect of the unleashing of Jihadism all over the world. We already see Islamic terrorism all over the world. From the U.S. to Western Europe to Russia to India to South America to Africa. The Middle East is important in the development and financing of terrorism but the acts of terrorism are felt everywhere. Americans are targeted in Iraq and Afghanistan by the same people that are targeting the rest of the world. The battle is religious and cultural and until the Obama administration leads Americans to face this fact, the Islamic extremists will continue to view the West as weak and every outreach will be seen as an opening be taken advantage of by this drive for Islamic domination.
First, let's get the facts straight, the misrepresentation of the situation in the press: which refers to the home building in Jerusalem as "new settlements on the West Bank". Jerusalem is not in the West Bank, Barack Obama agreed that Jerusalem was not included in the "freeze", and no country that I have found in my research has allowed the outside world to tell their own people where they can and cannot live. Jerusalem, as the Prime Minister has repeated many times is the undivided capital of the Jewish Nation State of Israel. Whether the rest of the world likes it or not, this is a fact that no amount of political pressure will change.
Second, the Obama administration has shown not one sign of respect or friendship to its most reliable ally in this region. Except for pretty words that are soon offset by unreasonable and insulting actions Israel has been of little interest. Instead of a reliable ally he seems to see an annoyance that he would like to stop buzzing around his quest to win the love and support of the Muslim countries of the region. Why we insist on taking at face value his claim that the Vice President, Joe Biden, came to smooth relations and develop a warmer connection with Israel is a mystery. The Vice President came to pressure Israel to bend to the Palestinian demands, which of course would mean suicide for Israel. If the building in Ramat Shlomo (a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem) had not come up it would have been something else i.e. Heritage sites, settlements, checkpoints, occupation, Arab humiliation. When "painful concessions" need to be made they are always Jewish, when was a "painful concession" ever made by the Arabs?
At the same time that the President and the Secretary of State were castigating Israel in the harshest manner ever, not a word appeared anywhere about the effect on peace prospects with the Arabs, when at the same time they are showering rocks down on supplicants praying at the Western Wall, or the Palestinian Authority preparing a major public dedication of a public square to honor Dalal Mugrahbi as a "courageous fighter who held a proud place in Palestinian history" according to a Fatah statement. What was this courageous fighter’s deed? Murdering an American photo journalist and 38 Israeli civilians including 13 children, very brave indeed.
Of course cold blooded murder is not nearly as serious as an announcement that a country will allow homes to be built in its own territory for its own citizens. Just weigh this: on the one hand, Jews building homes on the other hand, Palestinians making a hero out of a cold blooded murderer.
Jews are banned from building because they are Jews, there is no mention of the fact that Arabs are also building and often illegally (without building permits, try that in the U.S.).
The incendiary and public nature of the remarks from the Obama administration indicates the worst of intentions. As I mentioned in my previous post, Israel unquestionably wants only the best of relations with the United States, a natural ally, but it will not be at any price. There is an old song that says "I got along without you before I met you and I will get along without you now" It will be difficult and unpleasant and even dangerous but we know that the American people and the American Congress by 75% do not support the attacks by this administration. So, in time things will work out. The Prime Minister is balancing on the edge of a very sharp knife and doing it very well. We must let him know we support him in being firm with President Obama, Israel is not an American colony and that government cannot dictate her policies. She is a sovereign country and its citizens will live where they like. Israel will not tell Americans were they can live and Americans cannot tell Israelis where to live. Driving from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem last week I saw several different signs that read “Obama is not the ruler of Israel”, this piece of information should be passed on to President Obama.
When Barack Obama's Presidency is over the Jews will still be here, harried, stressed and embattled, but still determined to look out for our own best interests with or without our much loved and admired ally across the ocean.
Thanks to Arlene Kushner: OK. The situation is horrendous, and every bad thing we imagined would come from an Obama administration is materializing before our eyes.
We cannot simply be horrified. We absolutely must act. And at this juncture I would like to recommend a couple of specific things, with more to follow:
First, it is absolutely imperative that we give Netanyahu as much support as possible. Please, contact him! Large numbers make a difference.
Tell him that:
[] you are behind him and will support him as he stands strong for Israel.
[] He must not be pushed into concessions that are not in Israel's best interests because of threats from the Obama administration.
[] He must take the offensive, missing no opportunity to expose the insincerity of the PA and its consistent incitement.
[] He must, at all times, remember that Israel is a sovereign state and does not answer to the US. And that there is no need to apologize for this.
AKUSHNER18@GMAIL.COM
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
REDEDICATION OF HURVA SYNAGOGUE
HURVA SYNAGOGUE
When Menachim Begin described Jewish survival as” the stubborn, tenacious refusal to recognize the distinction between imagination and reality”, he may have been thinking of the Hurva synagogue as a symbol of that refusal to give up on a Jewish determination to turn imagination to reality.
The Hurva Synagogue, rededicated in March of this year, has to be considered a “recent” building, even though a synagogue has stood on today’s site since the 2nd century CE. In the 13th century many European Jews began returning to their homeland and the demand for synagogues grew. The current Hurva synagogue was built in 1701 (modern in the Jewish timeline), after the old building collapsed from neglect and old age. Rabbi Judah the Pious, convinced of the imminent appearance of the Messiah, gathered about 1500 followers from Moravia and Germany and went to Jerusalem to erect a house of prayer, after his death his followers became demoralized-- without a leader to inspire them they fell behind in their debts. This so their angered creditors they set fire to the Synagogue in 1720 and expelled the congregants, forbidding their return.
Rabbi Menachem Mendel was the next savior of this important expression of the Jewishness of Jerusalem. He saw the rebuilding of the HURVA of Kabbalistic significance. The name Hurva meaning ruin is perhaps symbolic of the idea of permanence; even a ruin is not deserted. Rabbi Mendel raised funds from the Montefiores and the Rothschilds as well as communities in St Petersburg, Baghdad, Cairo and India with the extraordinary determination of a true believer. His next obstacle was to gain the approval of the Ottoman Sultan, after convincing the British and Austrians to use their diplomatic connections, the permission was received and they began building in 1855. This was an amazing achievement in an atmosphere in which the Muslim anti-Jewish decrees were strictly enforced, because Jerusalem was known to have special significance to Jews. The Ottoman’s did not want Jerusalem rebuilt by Jews.
The Hurva was completed in 1864, by this time Jews were again a majority in Jerusalem. The Hurva was the most impressive synagogue in Jerusalem until 1948, when the Jordanians conquered Jerusalem and blew up the Hurva in their determination to rid Jerusalem of any Jewish presence of either people or place.
Even after the Six Day war when Israel finally regained control, assuring freedom of religion for all, the Hurva was not rebuilt for fear of upsetting the precarious balance between the various residents. Finally a compromise was reached to rebuild the Hurva based on the edifice being designed and built by the Effendi.
The two story high Torah ark is a faithful copy of the original that was carved in the Ukraine.
Under the barrel dome Jerusalem is symbolized by the Tower of David; Bethlehem by Rachel’s Tomb; Tiberias by Lake Kinneret; Hebron by the Cave of the Patriarchs.
This building is more than a building; it is a clear demonstration of the Jewish refusal to be deterred by setbacks, this unfailing hope for redemption—whether physical or spiritual—is the secret of the miracle that is the Jewish state. This is a building that should be on everyone’s list to visit when in Jerusalem. I suggest taking a minute to open the attached very short video, you won’t be sorry.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136397 (video)
Psalm 137:1 “By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion”
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Barack Obama , Jerusalem and the Jews Part 1
TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2009
BARACK OBAMA AND THE JEWS
Barack Obama and the Jews Part 1
It is said that to maintain power one must be trusted by his friends and feared by his enemies. We are now in an exercise that may 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 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 the Canal was important to Israel’s security and shipping. Immediately after 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 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 loud 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 in its own best interest without the permission of the U.S.?
Certainly the three billion dollars of U.S. military aid that Israel receives 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. Leverage around this is used 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 cannot forget the enormity of sacrifice our forebears suffered to keep the Jewish people together until sovereignty was restored. We have a debt to repay to them; maintaining our independence.
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 of 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. We sacrifice ourselves when we accept that we cannot survive without a caretaker. Our most important resource is our brainpower, fed by centuries of questioning and creativity. The miracle that is Israel today exists because we refused to NOT succeed.
Menachim Begin wrote that Jewish survival was due to “The stubborn, tenacious refusal to recognize the distinction between imagination and reality.” We all can recognize the complete illogic of Jewish survival as long as the will is there it will continue, with or without the world’s approval.
The decision of Barack Obama to flip the relationship with Israel from a solid if argumentative one to hostility 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 slap in the face Israel received from 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 unconstitutional 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 media Lockheed 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 reasons part 1
BARACK OBAMA AND THE JEWS
Barack Obama and the Jews Part 1
It is said that to maintain power one must be trusted by his friends and feared by his enemies. We are now in an exercise that may 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 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 the Canal was important to Israel’s security and shipping. Immediately after 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 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 loud 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 in its own best interest without the permission of the U.S.?
Certainly the three billion dollars of U.S. military aid that Israel receives 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. Leverage around this is used 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 cannot forget the enormity of sacrifice our forebears suffered to keep the Jewish people together until sovereignty was restored. We have a debt to repay to them; maintaining our independence.
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 of 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. We sacrifice ourselves when we accept that we cannot survive without a caretaker. Our most important resource is our brainpower, fed by centuries of questioning and creativity. The miracle that is Israel today exists because we refused to NOT succeed.
Menachim Begin wrote that Jewish survival was due to “The stubborn, tenacious refusal to recognize the distinction between imagination and reality.” We all can recognize the complete illogic of Jewish survival as long as the will is there it will continue, with or without the world’s approval.
The decision of Barack Obama to flip the relationship with Israel from a solid if argumentative one to hostility 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 slap in the face Israel received from 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 unconstitutional 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 media Lockheed 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 reasons part 1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
