[Peace-discuss] The US, Israel & war

[John W.]

So wait....Israel STARTED the Six-Day War back in - what?  1967?  They
weren't attacked?



On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:31 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:



> [This is from Uri Avnery, who's seen all Israel's wars first-hand.  The
> whole article is worth reading: <
> http://original.antiwar.com/avnery/2010/04/04/hold-me-back/>.  --CGE]
>
>
> ...First of all, a basic rule of Israeli reality: the state of Israel
> cannot start any large-scale military operation without American consent.
>
> Israel depends on the U.S. in almost every respect, but in no sphere is it
> more dependent than in the military one.
>
> The aircraft that must execute the mission were supplied to us by the U.S.
> Their efficacy depends on a steady flow of American spare parts. At that
> range, refueling from U.S.-built tanker aircraft would be necessary.
>
> The same is true for almost all other war material of our army, as well as
> for the money needed for their acquisition. Everything comes from America.
>
> In 1956, Israel went to war without American consent. Ben-Gurion thought
> that his collusion with the UK and France was enough. He was vastly
> mistaken. One hundred hours after telling us that the "Third Kingdom of
> Israel" had come into being, he announced with a broken voice that he was
> going to evacuate all the territories just conquered. President Dwight
> Eisenhower, together with his Soviet colleague, had submitted an ultimatum,
> and that was the end of the adventure.
>
> Since then, Israel has not started a single war without securing the
> agreement of Washington. On the eve of the Six-Day War, a special emissary
> was sent to the U.S. to make sure that there was indeed American agreement.
> When he returned with an affirmative answer, the order for the attack was
> issued.
>
> On the eve of Lebanon War I, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon rushed to
> Washington to obtain American consent. He met with Secretary of State
> Alexander Haig, who agreed – but only on condition that there would be a
> clear provocation. A few days later there just happened to be an attempt on
> the life of the Israeli ambassador in London, and the war was on.
>
> The Israeli army’s offensives against Hezbollah ("Lebanon War II") and
> Hamas ("Cast Lead") were possible because they were cast as part of the
> American campaign against "Radical Islam."
>
> Ostensibly, that is also true for an attack on Iran. But no.
>
> Because an Israeli attack on Iran would cause a military, political, and
> economic disaster for the United States of America.
>
> Since the Iranians, too, realize that Israel could not attack without
> American consent, they would react accordingly.
>
> As I have written here before, a cursory glance at the map suffices to
> indicate what would be the immediate reaction. The narrow Hormuz Strait at
> the entrance of the Persian Gulf, through which a huge part of the world’s
> oil flows, would be sealed at once. The results would shake the
> international economy, from the U.S. and Europe to China and Japan. Prices
> would soar to the skies. The countries that had just begun to recover from
> the world economic crisis would sink to the depths of misery and
> unemployment, riots, and bankruptcies.
>
> The Strait could be opened only by a military operation on the ground. The
> U.S. simply has no troops to spare for this – even if the American public
> were ready for another war, one much more difficult than even those of Iraq
> and Afghanistan. It is even doubtful whether the U.S. could help Israel to
> defend itself against the inevitable counterstrike by Iranian missiles.
>
> The Israeli attack on a central Islamic country would unite the entire
> Islamic world, including the entire Arab world. The U.S. has spent the last
> few years laboring mightily to form a coalition of "moderate" Arab states
> (meaning: countries governed by dictators kept by the U.S.) against the
> "radical" states. This pack would immediately become unstuck. No Arab leader
> would be able to stand aside while the masses of his people were gathering
> in tumultuous demonstrations in the squares.
>
> All this is clear to any knowledgeable person, and even more so to the
> American military and civilian leaders. Secretaries, generals, and admirals
> have been sent to Israel to make this clear to our leaders in a language
> that even kindergarten kids can understand: No! Lo! La! Nyet!
>
> If so, why has the military option not been removed from the table?
>
> Because the U.S. and Israel like it lying there...
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100406/f182b26a/attachment-0001.html>