13 November 2012

Foreign Affairs journal says the US-Israel link is doing just fine.

Here's an item I don't recall seeing in the hard copy of the Foreign Affairs journal when we we're, just recently, in New York (as I've said in other recent postings). Foreign Affairs, for those who've never come across it, is a high quality intellectual monthly for that hoped for creature, the highly intelligent lay-person. The articles are not for the faint-hearted; they are often densely argued; but they are argued, not asserted. In other words, they provide evidence to (dis)agree with. This article is all about the relationship between the US and Israel and argues that the relationship is not only not one-sided, but actually benefits the US. And don't US politicians know it, those who aren't dyed-in-the-wool antisemites, that is. And it has nothing to do with any Lobby, Jewish or Israeli. Nor, come to that, which party holds the White House or control of Congress.

A sample quote: "U.S.-Israeli security cooperation dates back to heights of the Cold War, when the Jewish state came to be seen in Washington as a bulwark against Soviet influence in the Middle East and a counter to Arab nationalism. Although the world has changed since then, the strategic logic for the U.S.-Israeli alliance has not. Israel remains a counterweight against radical forces in the Middle East, including political Islam and violent extremism. It has also prevented the further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the region by thwarting Iraq and Syria’s nuclear programs."

Need more? Here are four sentences with about 6 reasons why the US-Israel link not only flourishes but is likely to remain strong: "The two countries share intelligence on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and Middle Eastern politics. Israel’s military experiences have shaped the United States’ approach to counterterrorism and homeland security. The two governments work together to develop sophisticated military technology, such as the David’s Sling counter-rocket and Arrow missile defense systems, which may soon be ready for export to other U.S. allies. Israel has also emerged as an important niche defense supplier to the U.S. military, with sales growing from $300 million per year before September 11 to $1.1 billion in 2006, due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel’s military research and development complex has pioneered many cutting-edge technologies that are transforming the face of modern war, including cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles (such as land robots and aerial drones), sensors and electronic warfare systems, and advanced defenses for military vehicles."

Thus, my argument is that it probably doesn't matter who the US President is, or what his rhetoric is, this link aian't gonna be broken any time soon. Don't (want to) believe me? Then read the article, and come up with your counter-arguments:

By: Brian Goldfarb


Dick Stanley said...

Uh, well, let's start with this current president throwing Israel's longtime supporter-by-treaty Mubarek under the bus, then supporting (financially and who knows how else) his Islamist jihadi replacements who probably have no intention of playing nice with Israel. Then, there was Daffy Duck, who had recently begun cooperating with us against Iran. He also got pushed out and then murdered while we merrily supported his replacements, who also seem to be Islamists who have no love for the Zionist entity. That's two American-fomented strikes against Israel right there.

I have no doubt the relationship was and is good for the U.S., and that the link (at least the sympathetic link) won't ever be broken, but it's a new U.S., in case you haven't noticed (or don't believe it yet). This president is different. He rules by executive order and one of the things he's doing with it is downsizing the American military, which might not be in a position to help out with C-130s full of bombs and ammo the next time the Arabs decide to go to war with Israel.

Brian Goldfarb said...

Umm, re Egyptian Islamic Jihadists, how come Morsi sent a nice letter to Peres, along with his Ambassador? He didn't need to, protocol doesn't demand it, just the "letters patent" pertaining to this person being the duly appointed Ambassador, etc and so forth.

Just askin'

Dick Stanley said...

Umm, why has Morsi now withdrawn his Ambassador and is threatening to defend Gaza against the IDF? Just askin'

Brian Goldfarb said...

Because he has to? To retain credibility with his constituency? Do we really think he wants to lose another several thousand Egyptian troops and huge amounts of equipment to another disastrous war with the "Zionist entity"?

Dick Stanley said...

"His constituency"? I hardly would rank Morsi as a democratic pol worried about his "base." Anyway, the days of Arab conventional war, i.e. massed troops along borders and advancing tanks, seem to be over. He doesn't have to lose anything, including his billions from Obama, to help arm Hamas with American weapons, perhaps even pass a few score new Jihadi recruits through the Rafah crossing, all neatly disguised as humanitarian aid, of course. The idea is to kill lots of IDF, not Egyptian troops. Have you noticed that behind Obama's "support" he is already talking "de-escalation?" A return to the status quo, which means only "lightly" rocketing and shelling the South. In backing the Brotherhood over Mubarak, Obama has changed the game. Which goes back to your original assertion that American presidents come and go but American policy toward Israel remains the same. If that was true, Mubarak would still be in power.

David All said...

Please do not pay too much attention to Dick. He is still upset that Obama was re-elected. Dick believes that the US is some grand arbitrator that can decide whether leaders of other countries can go or stay. The fact that the Egyptian people had enough of Mubarak and his dictatorship means nothing to him. Obama alone decides who stays in power and who does not.