[Peace-discuss] The US, Israel & war

Tue Apr 6 12:36:44 CDT 2010

I think Avnery knows Israeli politics better than he knows US politics.

On 4/6/10 12:21 PM, David Green wrote:
> Of course, this article makes an excerpt from one of Avnery's previous
> articles look ridiculous; but nobody has to worry about being
> contradicted when they estimate the power of the Lobby.
> http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html
>
> AS IS well known, the pro-Israel lobby dominates the American political
> system without limits – almost. Every American politician and senior
> official is mortally afraid of it. The slightest deviation from the
> strict AIPAC line is tantamount to political suicide.
>
> But in the armor of this political Goliath there is a chink. Like
> Achilles’ heel, the immense might of the pro-Israel lobby has a
> vulnerable point that, when touched, can neutralize its power.
>
> It was illustrated by the Jonathan Pollard affair. This American-Jewish
> employee of a sensitive intelligence agency spied for Israel. Israelis
> consider him a national hero, a Jew who did his duty to his people. But
> for the US intelligence community, he is a traitor who endangered the
> lives of many American agents. Not satisfied with a routine penalty, it
> induced the court to impose a life sentence. Since then, all American
> presidents have refused the requests of successive Israeli governments
> to commute the sentence. No president dared to confront his intelligence
> chiefs in this matter.
>
> But the most significant side of this affair is reminiscent of the
> famous words of Sherlock Holmes about the dogs that did not bark. AIPAC
> did not bark. The entire American Jewish community fell silent. Almost
> nobody raised their voice for poor Pollard.
>
> Why? Because most American Jews are ready to do anything – just anything
> – for the government of Israel. With one exception: they will not do
> anything that appears to hurt the security of the United States. When
> the flag of security is hoisted, the Jews, like all Americans, snap to
> attention and salute. The Damocles sword of suspicion of disloyalty
> hangs above their heads. For them, this is the ultimate nightmare: to be
> accused of putting the security of Israel ahead of the security of the
> US. Therefore it is important for them to repeat endlessly the mantra
> that the interests of Israel and the US are identical.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Tue, April 6, 2010 10:24:46 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] The US, Israel & war
>
> 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.