[Peace-discuss] The US, Israel & war

[Morton K. Brussel]

Let us only hope that (most of ) what  Avnery says is true. These are opinions. --mkb

On Apr 6, 2010, at 12:31 AM, C. G. Estabrook 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


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