Re: We killed Bin Laden! f*ck your Jihad! Hoorah Seals!!!!!!!!!!
aussieavodart said:
There had been a US arms embargo against Israel until the 60's. Military 'loans' and all manner of diplomatic and financial support flowed after the 70's. There was support for Israel from the US prior to this but nothing like what it is now.
Anytime Israel was condemned at the UN or expect to fulfill some kind of legal obligation the US was there to veto the resolution. Every year there is resolution in the GA called the peaceful settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it's basically a vote for the two state solution. Every year the vote is roughly the same: the entire world on one side (in favor of the resolution) and Israel, America, sometimes Australia and a few pacific islands opposing it.
There was a recent resolution condemning the settlements a few months back, that was vetoed by the US. There was a resolution passed in the congress condemning the Goldstone Report as well (that's the report investigating war crimes from the 2008 Gaza War)
Hi, Aussie. This is Sally, Bryan's sister, the former U.S. diplomat. Just a couple of quick comments on your posting.
I do agree entirely that the West's policies certainly influence Muslim people's attitudes. How can they not? That is the way the world works. U.S. support for Israel is of course at the center of the anti-US sentiment in the Arab world (as opposed to the Muslim world). I can't resist pointing out that this anti-US sentiment exists in spite of the US providing tens of millions of dollars a year in economic assistance to the region (in addition to the military assistance).
[In an effort to be objective and fair, it should be pointed out that, while one may disagree vehemently with Israeli foreign policy, Israel has the only democracy in the Middle East with highly developed social programs, huge scientific capacity, and one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. I would call your attention to the U.N.'s report on the Arab world that was published in the early 2000s which was a broadly accepted indictment of the underdevelopment in Arab countries because of the failure of their economic policies, their failure to invest in education, and their treatment of women.]
I think there are two (at least) major issues in the region: the Palestinian issue and the Arab region's underdevelopment.
With regard to your point that US policy shifted in the 1970s, yes and no. See the paragraphs below, please:
"Up until the mid-1960s, State Department and Pentagon officials argued that Israel did not need American arms because it was strong enough to defend itself (as evidenced by the Suez campaign) and had access to arms elsewhere. Officials also worried that the Arabs would be alienated and provoked to ask the Soviets and Chinese for weapons that would stimulate a Middle East arms race.
"U.S. policy first shifted with John Kennedy's 1962 sale of HAWK antiaircraft missiles to Israel, which was made over the objection of the State Department, but only after Egypt obtained long-range bombers from the Soviets. Lyndon Johnson subsequently provided Israel with tanks and aircraft, but these sales were balanced by transfers to Arab countries. U.S. policy was to avoid providing one state in the area a military advantage over the other. This changed in 1968 when Johnson announced the sale of Phantom jets to Israel. That sale established the United States as Israel's principal arms supplier. It also marked the beginning of the U.S. policy to give Israel a qualitative military edge over its neighbors."
I can't remember my specific source for the above two paragraphs but I found them on the web and know them to be accurate. A minor point of clarification: the US did not have an "embargo" on Israel up until the 1970s. It simply had made a decision not to sell arms to Israel since it viewed Israel as not needing US arms. That is different from an "embargo."
In the late 1970s, as you know, President Carter negotiated the historically important Camp David agreement that brought peace to the Middle East's two most important belligerents who had gone to war with each other several times since WWII. Widescale war in the region is unthinkable without Egypt's and Israel's participation. [This is not to say that local conflicts, i.e., Israel-Lebanon, Israel-Gaza, etc. don't occur.] This was followed by Jordan's peace treaty with Israel and, I would argue, a grudging, quiet (i.e., rarely publicly acknowledged) accommodation between Israel and several Gulf countries (incl. the Saudis).
Clearly US policy is to support Israel for the reasons everyone knows. What is less known is how much the US has leaned on Israel at different points during recent history. In fact I would argue that the US-Israel relationship hsa been very very very bumpy during much of the past quarter century. Certainly it is today as a result of the Obama Administration's policies.
I myself have been critical of Israel's foreign policies. The single most important thing Israel could do to ensure its national security would be to negotiate an early emergence of a Palestinian state. Having said that, the Palestinians have blown it -- totally blown it -- on more than one occasion. [I am thinking specifically of President Clinton's having come within a hair of getting an agreement and the Palestinians couldn't bring themselves to accept victory.] I spent a fair amount of time in the Middle East during the 1990s and, while I am hugely sympathetic to the Arab cause, I put the blame for the Arabs' underdevelopment squarely on their own shoulders.
A last comment (on re-reading the above comments they may appear to be a bit disjointed): the Arab countries have not been independent for very long. They are still smarting from the colonial period (the Ottoman, then the European). Israel probably would not be independent today were it not for President Truman's leadership in pushing for the creation of the state of Israel. So the Arab countries certainly have that in the back of their minds...in addition to their ire over the Palestinians' plight and the US' public strong support for Israel (the very real skirmishes between the US and Israel are generally kept under wraps).
To sum up.....what needs to change? The US needs to support a Palestinian state and President Obama's speech yesterday is an important step in that direction. The US also needs to stand squarely on the side of those calling for political reform in the region. This is easier said than done since some of the monarchies are our staunchest allies against Iran.
One thing one learns early on as a foreign policy decision-maker is that often one has no good options; rather one has only various bad or poor options. You do the right thing vis-a-vis one country and you pay a stiff price vis-a-vis some other country. Foreign policy is the art of balance while protecting (or trying to protect) one's principles.
