The HyperTexts
April Fools: Israel's Dangerous Gambit, American Lives at Risk
by Michael R. Burch, an editor and publisher of Holocaust and Nakba poetry
The article below, which appeared recently in the Israeli newspaper
Haaretz, makes two very important points, which I have bolded. My comments appear
in square brackets. I have also followed the article with relevant comments by several experts who have shared their interpretations of the confrontation
between the two most powerful United States lobbies: the military lobby and the
pro-Israel lobby. It seems the policies and actions of
Israel are endangering both the mission and the lives of American troops. Should American support of
Israel extend to favoring the lives of Israelis who squat on Palestinian land
over the lives of our own soldiers? Shouldn't our soldiers' lives and wellbeing have
the highest priority, until we can bring them home safely?
U.S. general: Israel-Palestinian conflict foments anti-U.S. sentiment
Haaretz
03/17/2010
U.S. General David Petraeus said on Wednesday that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict was fomenting anti-American sentiment due to the
perception of U.S. favoritism towards Israel. Speaking to the Senate Armed
Services Committee, Petraeus explained that "enduring hostilities between Israel
and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance
our interests in the area of responsibility." [The text of the entire
presentation is available online, at this link:
prepared testimony.]
"Arab anger over the Palestinian question
limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with [regional] governments and peoples,"
Petraeus said.
[What I believe Petraeus probably means, but can’t say in so many words, is that
our troops are being maimed and killed because Israel keeps stealing land and
water from Palestinians, while denying them equal rights and justice, and this inflames the
entire region. Of course it’s not politically correct for a U.S. general to say,
“Israel’s reckless racist actions are getting our troops blown apart.” But the experts
whose remarks follow seem to "read between the lines" the same way I did, when I
read the Haaretz report.]
His comments follow a week of tense relations between Israel
and the U.S. following Israel's announcement of plans to build 1,600 housing
units in East Jerusalem, which was made public while U.S. Vice President Joe
Biden was visiting the country.
On Sunday, another prominent member of Barak Obama's
government, chief political adviser David Axelrod, said ending the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict was imperative for U.S. security. Speaking on
Israel's announcement about building in East Jerusalem,
Axelrod hinted that it was a deliberate attempt to thwart indirect talks
with the Palestinians. "It was an insult, but that's not the most important
thing," Axelrod added, saying that the move was disruptive to upcoming proximity
talks with the Palestinians and that the approval during Biden's visit "seemed
calculated to undermine that, and that was distressing to everyone
who is promoting the idea of peace and security in the region."
[Why would Israel deliberately undermine the peace talks, before they start? I
believe Bibi Netanyahu revealed the reason recently at a Likud party meeting,
when he said the same policy that has prevailed in Israel for the last 42 years will
continue to prevail: that policy being that Israelis will build wherever
they please. The leaders of Israel have long maintained that Israelis
should not be limited to only the land within the borders of Israel, even though the U.N. mandate
that partitioned Palestine designated land for a Palestinian state. Most Americans are living in la-la land,
while Muslims understand the actual reality. The leaders of Israel have been saying one
thing to the American public (that they want peace), when their actions say the
opposite (that what they really want is free land). That land may be "free" to
Israelis who steal it without paying for it, but
it is incredibly expensive to Palestinians, Americans and the rest of the world. In the past
Israel's leaders were far more cautious about declaring their true intentions,
but Bibi Netanyahu seems to have thrown caution and discretion to the four winds. ]
Responding to the possibility that Israel's move could have
any effect on U.S. soldiers in the region, Axelrod said that he believed "that
issue is a flare point throughout the region, and so I'm not going to put it in
those terms."
[To me this seems like a diplomatic way of saying, “Yes, but I
can’t say in public that the government of Israel is getting our troops maimed
and killed." Axelrod didn't deny what seems obvious: that the mission of
American soldiers is being undermined by the policies and actions of
Israel. The more their mission is prolonged, the higher the death toll on both
sides. The logical things for Americans who care about the lives of our soldiers
to do would be: (1) require Israel to do what every civilized nation must do,
and abandon government-sanctioned racism by establish fair laws and fair courts
for Israelis and Palestinians alike; or (2) stop U.S. funding and support of
this new Holocaust of the Palestinian people and "divorce" the government of
Israel, at least until Israel begins to act like a civilized nation. But our
government seems incapable of doing anything logical or reasonable. So it seems
likely that our troops will remain ducks in a shooting gallery, while Israelis
continue to steal land and water from increasingly destitute Palestinians, until
we end up fighting World War III.]
However, the top Obama aide added that he did "believe that it
is absolutely imperative, not just for the security of Israel and the
Palestinian people, who were, remember, at war just a year ago, but it is
important for our own security that we move forward and resolve this very
difficult issue." Axelrod said that the bond between Israel and the United
States was "strong," but added that "for just that very reason, this was not
the right way to behave."
[The problem seem obvious. Americans want peace and we want to get our troops
out of the Middle East. But as long as Israel keeps stealing land and water from the Palestinians,
who have nowhere to go and are running out of options, peace is impossible. That
means more events like 9-11, which means more fruitless, unwinnable
wars. Together Israel and the U.S. could wipe out Iran. Is that Israel’s other
main agenda? We already took out Iraq, even though Iraq was no threat to us. Israel gets
"free" land in the bargain, while Americans get nothing but blood on our hands,
decade-long wars, and trillions of dollars in debt. Surely it’s long past time to tell
Israel that its main agenda, land-grabbing, has no appeal for Americans. Israel has plenty of
undeveloped land within its own borders. Land stolen from the Palestinians in
1948 lies fallow to this day, because most Israeli Jews prefer to live in urban
areas. Israel is spending billions of dollars (much of it provided by the
American taxpayer) to build Jewish-only roads in Occupied
Palestine, when its own highways have fallen into disrepair and have become
death traps. Far more people are dying on those roads than in terrorist attacks.
When terrorist attacks occur, the main underlying reason is Israel’s
government-sponsored land-grabbing. Most of the world has understood this for
some time now. All the Muslim world understands it. But American generals and
senior politicians are unable to tell Americans the simple truth, in plain
English: “When Israel steals land from Palestinians, the cost is events like
9-11, wars with Muslim nations, and the health, mental well-being and lives of
American troops.” If we care about our troops, isn’t it time to tell Israel to
cease and desist? Why can’t Israel build on its own land, like
every other civilized nation on earth? Why should Americans subsidize “free” land
for Israeli Jews with the lives of our troops, while amassing trillions of
dollars in debts our children will have to mortgage their futures to
repay?]
Here are the comments of experts on the Middle East and our military:
According to a piece titled "Driving Drunk in Jerusalem" by Thomas Friedman, a
Jewish-American writer with three Pulitzer Prizes to his credit, Joe Biden should have: "snapped his notebook shut, gotten right
back on Air Force Two, flown home and left the following scribbled note behind:
'Message from America to the Israeli government: Friends don't let friends drive
drunk. And right now, you're driving drunk. You think you can embarrass your
only true ally in the world, to satisfy some domestic political need, with no
consequences? You have lost total contact with reality. Call us when you're
serious. We need to focus on building our country.'"
According to Pierre Tristam, a native of Beirut who became an American citizen
1986 and now writes extensively about the Middle East, "The political
ramifications in Israel or between Israel and the United States aren't the main
issue here. What this 'insult' is unraveling is what Friedman alludes to, though
not clearly enough: Israel's posture is undercutting American credibility and
interests in the Middle East (in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and even in
the Arab heartland where open conflicts don't cloud perspectives)."
Mark Perry, the former co-Director of the Washington, D.C., London, and
Beirut-based Conflicts Forum and the author of nine books, makes a similar point in a
piece he wrote for Foreign Affairs about a January 2010 meeting between General
David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, and Joint Chiefs of
Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen.
According to Perry's report, "On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit
Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command
(responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East),
arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael
Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by
CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries about the
lack of progress in resolving the issue. 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 [George] Mitchell himself was
(as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) 'too old, too slow ...
and too late.'"
The meeting was "unprecedented," as "no previous CENTCOM commander had ever
expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue." Therefore, the
briefers were "careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a
December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke
to senior Arab leaders." The news was "pretty humbling," according to a Pentagon
officer familiar with the briefing. During the meeting, Petraeus warned Mullen
that "everywhere in the Middle East" because of what Muslims almost universally
perceive as Israel's "gratuitous manipulation" of American policy, "America was
not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding."
According to Perry, "two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper
to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel,
is a part of the European Command—or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of
operations. Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as
engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict."
[Interestingly, it seems the Pentagon verified the gist of Perry's report, by
correcting a fairly minor detail, when a senior military officer said via email
that "CENTCOM did have a team brief the CJCS on concerns revolving around the
Palestinian issue, and CENTCOM did propose a UCP change, but to CJCS, not to the
WH. GEN Petraeus was not certain what might have been conveyed to the WH (if
anything) from that brief to CJCS." (CJCS refers to Mullen, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff; WH is the White House; I believe UCP is the Unified
Command Plan, which delineates the organizational structure of the Department of
Defense.)]
According to Perry, Petraeus's request "was dead on arrival." It seems the Obama
administration, like previous administrations, doesn't want "linkage" between
Israel and various serious problems the United States faces, even though those
problems are closely or directly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
[Perhaps the most puzzling "unlinking" is that of the 9-11 attacks which led
directly to two wars, since Osama bin Laden himself said the idea for the
attacks occurred to him when he saw Muslim women and children suffering and
dying because of the military actions of Israel and the United States in Lebanon.
The U.S. Sixth Fleet shelled Lebanon with the largest guns afloat: the
16-inchers of the battleship New Jersey, in 1983. While I don't
agree with bin Laden's tactics, I certainly don’t believe Americans should be
contributing to the suffering and premature deaths (i.e., murders) of innocent
women and children. But this curious "unlinking" of a series of
catastrophic events to their likely source — the Nakba ("Catastrophe") of the
Palestinians at the hands of Israelis — begs the question: can the Muslims be
right, that where there is smoke, fire may well be the cause?]
According to Paul Woodward, in December 2006 the Iraq Study Group Report was
explicit in making this linkage, saying "The United States cannot achieve its
goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict
and regional instability."
According to Tristam, "It's a colossal blind spot. The fuel and fury of every
other conflict, at least in the popular imagination's mind (the popular
imagination that fanatics depend on and preach to) is rooted in the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Resolve that one and the reason for being of such
groups as Hezbollah, Iran's radical clerics and the Osama bin Ladens of the
world is considerably diminished."
[In other words, if extremists couldn't point
fingers at the suffering of Palestinians due to the injustices of Israel and the
U.S., the fanatics and other extremists would have to start making sense, which isn't their strong
point. By not treating the Palestinians as human beings with equal rights,
Israel and the U.S. have opened a Pandora's box of evils, and now Americans are
suffering the consequences. But the only people really profiting are Israeli
robber barons, many of whom seem to be just as fanatical as the worst Islamic
extremists. Why should we favor Jewish extremists who want to "cleanse" Palestine of
Palestinians? I believe Americans should say, "We believe in equal rights
for all women and children, and don’t support men of any race or religion who
harm them." And we should be damn sure our government is not supporting or
funding injustices which cause Muslim women and children to suffer and die,
because there are 1.8 billion Muslims we have to share the planet with. But even
if there were no repercussions, why should we contribute to the suffering and
deaths of women and children? This has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic.
Most Palestinians are Semites. This has everything to do with living up to the
American creed that all human beings are created equal, and are entitled to
justice and fair play. Israel refuses to play fair. This is leading not only to
the suffering and deaths of Palestinians, but now also to the suffering and
deaths of our troops.]
Rather than giving Petraeus jurisdiction, the Obama administration decided it
would "redouble its efforts" by pressing Israel once again on the settlements
issue. So George Mitchell was sent to visit to "a number of Arab capitals" while
Mullen was sent to meet with the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General
Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused
on Iran, Perry says the JCS Chairman actually carried a "blunt, and tough,
message" that Israel had to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger,
regional, context" — as having a direct impact on America's status in the
region. "Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message."
[I wish someone would also point out that depriving human beings of human rights
and dignity is just plain wrong. Don’t we say that
to Muslim nations when we women and children being mistreated? Then why not say it to Israelis as
well? Americans took steps to end government-sanctioned racism, so why can't our
politicians speak forthrightly and say, "Racism and intolerance are wrong. If
you want our support, behave like a civilized nation."]
But it seems that Israel didn't get the message, as Biden
learned on his recent visit. According to Perry, Biden had a private shouting
match with Netanyahu: "Not surprisingly, 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, an Israeli daily, reported: 'The vice president told his
Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection
between Israel's actions and U.S. 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."
[But if Israel's intransigence was the root cause of the 9-11 attacks, then it has
already led to thousands of American deaths, and hundreds of thousands of Muslim
deaths.]
Perry's conclusion: "Say what you will about the power of the
Israeli lobby, it does not compare with the power of the Pentagon/military
lobby. Israel's short-sighted presumptions may be running out of immunity. If
so, it's about time. But so far the Obama administration is still playing the
game on Israel's terms. Huffing and puffing doesn't add up to getting tough in
substance."
[What almost no one seems to ask, but I think is a reasonable question, is whether 9-11
would have happened if our government had either forced Israel to treat the
Palestinians like human beings, or had "divorced" Israel publicly, so Muslims no
longer saw our governments as being joined at the hip.]
Woodward, commenting on Perry's report, said, "The shift, as expressed by Joe
Biden last week and by the Petraeus briefing in January is that Israel is now
being seen as a liability: the Jewish state is putting American lives at risk
... Such a shift marks a watershed in US-Israeli relations and so Perry’s report
naturally raises questions. Indeed, the first line of defense from Israel and
its supporters will be to claim that, on the contrary, recent events are nothing
more than a bump in the road; that we can expect a quick resumption of business
as usual between such close allies. For this reason, I asked Mark—who I have
had the privilege of working with in recent years—to provide some background
to his report. This is what he said:"
"My piece on the briefing of Admiral Mullen by CENTCOM senior
officers has occasioned a great deal of comment, as well as some skepticism: how
accurate is the account? Was it told to me by direct participants in the
briefing? Is there any basis for imagining that Petraeus has any kind of hidden
agenda, whether that is a desire to expand CENTCOM—or even hostility towards
Israel."
"I won’t name my sources, even though it’s clear to people in
the Pentagon—and certainly to General Petraeus—who they are. Was I told of
the briefing by the briefers themselves? I will only say that there were four
people in the briefing—the two briefers, Admiral Mullen, and Admiral Mullen’s
primary adviser on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know two of the people
involved in the briefing. Whether or not they are my sources is something for
the reader to determine. The account is not only accurate, it’s a précis of what
actually happened. There is a lot more to it. The White House, State Department
and Pentagon have not denied the account, and for good reason: it’s true."
"Is there any basis for imagining that Petraeus has any kind
of hidden agenda in ordering the briefing?"
"I have been reporting on the American military for thirty
years. My work on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Four Stars, is the authoritative
account on the subject. I have deeply rooted contacts in the military that go
back thirty years. I have never met a senior military officer whom I do not
admire. There is no greater insult than to believe that General Petraeus or any
other senior American military officer would use the lives of American soldiers
as a lever to enhance their own political future. My sense is that General
Petraeus neither likes nor dislikes Israel: but he loves his country and he
wants to protect our soldiers. The current crisis in American relations with
Israel is not a litmus test of General Petraeus’s loyalty to Israel, but of his,
and our, concern for those Americans in uniform in the Middle East."
"It is, perhaps, a sign of the depth of 'the Biden crisis'
that every controversy of this type seems to get translated into whether or not
America and its leaders are committed to Israel’s security. This isn’t about
Israel’s security, it’s about our security."
[Every nation on earth is rightfully concerned about the safety and security of
its own citizens. Is it "anti-Semitic" if Americans say we don’t want our
soldiers—our own children!—to die so that Israeli robber barons and
squatters can steal land from increasingly destitute Palestinians? Of course
not. I'm an editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry, not an anti-Semite. I'm also a father who
doesn't want my children and grandchildren to die because someone in another
country abuses women and children and steals their land and water. I hope all
the people of the Middle East find peace. But I do not want my tax dollars to
fund the injustices of Israel, and particularly not when those injustices
endanger the lives of my own loved ones, and American soldiers. The cost of "free" land for
Israeli squatters is far, far too high. A civilized nation builds on its own
land, and respects the borders of its neighbors. Civilized men do not cause or
allow women and children to suffer and die, so that a few robber barons can take
land without paying for it. And friends don't let their friends drive drunk. If
they insist on driving drunk, real friends will take away their keys. Clearly,
it's time for Americans to insist that their Israeli friends stop driving drunk,
or take away the keys. After all, our children are sitting in the back seat.]]
The HyperTexts