There's been a fair amount of coverage of what this CTV article refers to as a "feud" between the United States and Israel. But there's a bit of background I read last night that hasn't been reported in the major media outlets as far as I've seen. This is from Foreign Policy magazine and describes a briefing prepared at the request of CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus and presented to Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."
Perhaps that helps to explain why Vice President Biden was dispatched to the region to try and kick-start peace talks.
When the announcement about the settlement plans in East Jerusalem was made, Biden's displeasure was reported but this is the only place in which I've seen this aspect of it mentioned.
... what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.
To which I say: Holy crap! Someone in power is finally acknowledging that unconditional American support for Israel's occupation isn't necessarily in the best interests of the United States.
That extra bit of context suggests that this "feud" isn't just political theatre.
H/t Ron Beasley at Newshoggers for the Foreign Policy link.
Note: If you're wondering why there appears to be a change in the commenting policy, please see The spammers made me do it.
Perhaps the Obama administration might reconsider the billions in military aid to Israel, as way to fight the U.S. deficit.
The Israelis have been overstepping on a number of turfs lately, and the U.S. administration alone hasn't looked very capable of reining them in.
As you suggested at BnR, pogge, it might take serious pressure from the U.S. military to shift the balance. Congress, largely in thrall to AIPAC, don't want to di it, and I don't know how these things work behind the scenes, but I have a feeling that pressure from the MIC is the one kind of pressure that might influence congresscritturs more than AIPAC pressure does.
I'm sure that Netanyahu, at least, would grasp the problem of a hold on funds very quickly, although there are members of his government who are wingy enough to remain defiant even in the face of that threat.
Interesting that the cost is measured in AMERICAN lives. Let's face it. That is the only currency which has value, right?
American lives only have value if they die outside of the US especially if in uniform. Those who die at home have no more value than a Palestinian
I've never met you, Kev. But I like the way you think.
Now--if only Canada would wake up. S O G--you are absolutely right--only American lives are worthy of mentioning. But then, I guess it is because it is the Americans talking. It is just 'collateral damage' if someone else is killed, even Canadian soldiers killed by American soldiers.
Actually this shows that our 'concern' for the people we are killing to 'protect' is so much hogwash. As the zionists control our governments etc. this is only theatre. Nothing will change--"Canada stands with israel"
Have you seen this article
http://www.politicaltheatrics.net/2010/03/israeli-historian-israel-could-find-itself-forced-to-wipe-out-europe/
Have you seen this article...
Spend a minute with google and you'll find a lot of claims that the article is a fraud. In fact, if you check the original source article, the historian's name isn't spelled correctly which seems a rather obvious error to make for a site that presents itself as a news site. Combine that with the swastika imposed on the flag of Israel and I'd say you've found yourself a really poor source. There's radical and then there's just plain wrong.
It isn't necessary to drag stuff in here from the nether regions of the internet to convince us that the occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza need to stop.
I have a feeling a lot could be accomplished by cutting back the aid to Israel only a little, something that might be also more politically doable than a full freeze. It would give Netanyahu political cover to resist the craziest right of his coalition if he was so inclined (though I have doubts about that), it tells the Arab street that the United States is both willing to stand up to Israel and is not entirely deaf to the concerns of the Palestinian people, it doesn't provide Israel's lobbying arm in Washington much ground to cry anti-Semitism (not that that would stop them, going by past experience), and it leaves something in the quiver if Israel responds by becoming more intransigent.
I actually don't see any real downside. Both sides of the conflict could call it a slap on the wrist and minimize it, and even that would be useful to Obama domestically. At the same time, it still means something has been done. Doing nothing is the end of any claims Obama and Clinton might have made about being honest brokers to the conflict.
It would give Netanyahu political cover to resist the craziest right of his coalition if he was so inclined
I've seen speculation recently that what the Obama administration is trying to do is break up Netanyahu's governing coalition and force him to build a new one including more moderates instead of the far right parties he's allied with now.
Well, if the military-industrials as a whole really take a skeptical-about-Israel stance, the Israeli lobby will suddenly seem astonishingly less powerful. But I have my doubts that will happen; certain parts of the professional military itself may care about US soldiers and actual military objectives, but most of the rest prefers things chaotic over there, is very fond of their sales to Israel, of the stuff the US buys from them to give to Israel, and their sales to the people in the region who are scared of Israel. US soldiers dying means a clear need for increased budgets, cha-ching!
So in the mean time, the downside of reducing aid to Israel isn't geopolitical and the geopolitical is irrelevant. The downside is the career suicide, and more importantly the expectation of career suicide, for any legislator who suggests cutting aid to Israel. There are signs of cracks in that capability, but not significant ones yet.
Someone is certainly trying to make a connection: Support Our Troops: Boycott the Israeli Occupation.
I think even mentioning the possibility of cutbacks might focus some minds.
pogge--you still depend on google for your information?
Yes, his name was spelled wrong but it is not so wrong that it is not recognizable. The sound is the same, the letter is different.
I use google to search. That's what it's for. I try to apply my best judgment as to whether a particular story should be accepted at face value. In my opinion, the story you posted should not be accepted. The original source looks dodgy and I can't find any independent confirmation. But I can find lots of people calling it a fraud.
An article in Stars and Stripes contends that Petraeus attempted unsuccessfully to get Gaza and the West Bank added to centcoms area of responsibility
After reading several stories the last week or so it is beginning to look as if the US military is starting to make the connection between Americas blind support for Israel and anti-American sentiment in the Arab world and are expressing this view to their political masters.
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=68705
And the backlash: Foxman: Don't blame the Jews
I rest my case--Foxman is the eternal victim and plays the card every chance he gets or can create to play that card. He also does not mention the murdered Palestinians and intimates with his whine that only jewish lives are worth anything.
Just wanted to ask if anyone has read the book by John Perkins titled The Confessions of an Economic Hitman. In this book Perkins describes the disgusting behaviour of the US government in destroying the economy of so many people. Just as is happening to our country today, the money masters are taking charge. We are also living through the destruction of our economy and we know who controls the money.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18147
I agree with your comments about Foxman. He's a perfect example of the way in which it's Israel's defenders who blur the distinction between Israel and Jews, not those who criticize the policies of the Israeli government.
But I'm a bit confused about why the Lehman Bros. story is in this thread. It's an important story. It should be getting more mainstream coverage and there should be congressional investigations at least and depending on what they find, indictments. But why is it in a conversation about Israel and American foreign policy?
Because the actions of the money masters not only affect the US they affect the world. "We care not who makes the laws, whoever controls the money controls the country. And we control the money"> Famous statement by Rothchild.