GIRALDI : HOW ABOUT A CLEAN BREAK – WITH ISRAEL?

 
That  leading  policymakers  are  afraid  to  challenge  the  billions  of  dollars  flowing  to  Tel  
Aviv  while  US  senators  line  up  to  sign  on  to  a  letter  that  opposes  their  own  country’s  
interests  is  a  tragedy  of  epic  proportions.    
By  Philip  Giraldi  ,  03  Feb  2011  
 

Back in 1996, a group of leading neoconservatives led by Richard Perle

drafted a memorandum for then (as now) Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, recommending that Israel adopt a more
aggressive and assertive policy towards its neighbors. They called it a
“Clean Break” to suggest that it would be a major shift in policy. Today,
as American foreign policy looks more like a shipwreck than a victory
lap, there is perhaps a need for a Clean Break by Washington. As the
relationship with Tel Aviv has an impact far beyond Israel’s size and
importance it should, ironically, be the first element in the foreign policy
disaster that is examined.
Many Americans who indulge in the mainstream media believe that
Israel is a close friend and ally to the United States and that when it is
criticized the complaints are often unfair and might even in some cases
be motivated by anti-Semitism. Some Americans, mostly evangelical
Christians, actually believe that Israel is a special nation either because
it is the homeland of the Jewish people or anointed by God and that all
other nations of the world should defer to it and protect it. Still other
Americans realize that Israel is a nation with good and bad aspects but
are intent on using American power and wealth to nurture it because
they share either ethnic or religious ties with it.
Some Americans look beyond the bumper sticker definitions to
recognize that Israel is indeed like many other countries in most
respects but that it is also a special nation in that it has as its protector
the most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth. Some think that role
to be appropriate because the US has an obligation to guarantee Israeli
security, while others would disagree. Those who disagree frequently do
so because they find the Israeli influence over the United States to be a
dark force, sometimes leading Washington and its elected officials to
endorse policies that do not serve the interests of the American people.
They would cite examples like the Iraq War, in which supporters of
Israel played an enabling role, as well as the ongoing agitation to attack
Iran, which would be a replay of Iraq only much much worse.
That Israel is able to control many aspects of America’s relationship
with foreign nations is clear and the hubristic Israel Lobby makes
virtually no effort to hide what it is doing. On January 18th, Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wrote
a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling on the United States
to veto any resolution in the United Nations condemning the Israeli
settlements policy. The settlements are illegal under international law
and the pending resolution in the UN carefully uses the precise language
previously employed by US administrations to criticize their expansion
in an attempt to create an acceptable document and avoid a veto, but the
result is not good enough for Gillibrand. Joined by 15 other senators as
cosignatories, Gillibrand maintains fatuously and falsely that any
criticism of the settlements “hurts the prospects for a peace agreement
and is not in the interest of the United States.” In reality, as she well
knows, it is US acquiescence in the settlements that damages the US
standing in the world.
The past ten days has also provided several other examples of how Israel
exerts a strongly negative influence on American foreign policy.

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address urged support for
democratic forces in Tunisia. But he did not provide similar support for
the democratic forces in Egypt and for the new government in Lebanon,
which are both nations currently experiencing political unrest. Why?
Because both are frontline states with Israel, meaning that Washington
can only consider its relationship to them in terms of whether their
political developments are good for Israel or not. This has been
excruciatingly clear in the numerous comments by US government
spokesmen relating to developments in Cairo: Israel is almost
invariably mentioned. The United States prefers to give Cairo billions in
aid and covertly support the dictatorial rule of Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak because Egypt has kept the peace with Israel. Washington will
likewise oppose any government in Lebanon that is beholden to
Hezbollah, even if it does not threaten the US or American interests in
any way, because Hezbollah is the enemy of Israel.

Looking at the Middle East region objectively, one has to question

Washington’s actions. The US national interest is to have a peaceful
resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which would require an end to
the Israeli settlement policy. It also mandates non-hostile relations with
Lebanon and Egypt, nothing more. The Suez Canal is the only asset
controlled by Egypt that has international significance and it is in
Cairo’s interest, no matter what kind of government it has, to keep it
open and bringing in revenue. Egypt, Palestine, and Lebanon produce
nothing that the US needs to have and they are not important markets
for American goods. None of them threatens any genuine American
vital interest.
In another related development, last Wednesday newly elected senator
Rand Paul said that he favors ending all foreign aid, including the aid
given to Israel and Egypt, because the United States can no longer afford
it. Rather than encouraging anyone to debate the issue on its merits, the
Israel Lobby, Democratic politicians, and a representative from Paul’s
own Republican Party immediately attacked him, saying the proposal
was unthinkable. Well, think again. Israel gets billions of dollars yearly
from the US for no good reason beyond its ability to manipulate
Congress and the media. Paul’s opening the door to a serious discussion
about ending that subsidy is long overdue.
Senator Gillibrand’s excursion into fantasy, Rand Paul’s experience in
opening Pandora’s box, and the developing situation in Egypt together
illustrate how Israel is a United States national security liability and
always has been. The relationship narrows the options that US
policymakers can pursue in dealing with problems relating to the
Muslim world. Arguments that Israeli and American foreign policies are
and need to be identical based on shared opposition to international
terrorism and other such “values” are fallacious and are based on
constructs that are essentially false.
Israel’s bad relationship with its Muslim neighbors has led to frequent
wars and more limited military actions since the founding of the
country. In a normal world, the onus would be on Israel to establish a
modus vivendi with its neighbors, but it has regularly chosen to use the
mailed fist as its first option. Since it is a small country lacking in
resources, it has only been able to accomplish this by seeking out what
might be described as a force multiplier. To that end it has opted to use
its powerful lobby to shift US policy in its favor, relying on America as a
source of funds and both political and military protection. Its leading
politicians have even bragged about how the United States does its
bidding. This has done extreme damage to the United States, which has
initiated at least one war as a result, and has been engaged in what must
be described as a nearly continuous and escalating conflict with the
entire Muslim world on behalf of Israel. This has trashed America’s
reputation and has come at a real cost of trillions of dollars and
thousands of lives. The benefit to the American people has been zero.
In accomplishing its strategic objective of making the United States its
permanent protector, Israel and its lobby have also corrupted both
Congress and the White House and have created a permanent distortion
in how Washington sees the world and responds to it. Israel’s enemies,
even if they do not threaten the United States in any way, have become
America’s enemies. This has made the US in the eyes of much of the
world the enabler of Israeli actions and has in turn made Americans the
targets of international terrorism. Osama bin Laden was very clear on
the subject, stating that the United States is a partner in the Israeli
oppression of the Palestinians. The Israel relationship is a recruiting
tool for those who seek to do harm to the United States. Without the
Israeli nexus, there would have been no 9/11 and there would be no
hysteria about the danger from terrorists driving growth in government
and the development of the anti-libertarian security state.
And the relationship is expensive. Israel seeks to militarily dominate its
neighbors. It does so with American-provided weapons and maintains
its edge through US coproduction agreements that essentially fund jobs
in Israeli defense industries that compete directly with US companies
that sell the same products. Even though Israel is one of the richest
countries in the world, Washington gives it a vast array of advanced
weaponry for free and also hands to it the technologies that enable it to
eliminate American jobs. As Israeli companies can bid on defense
contracts just as if they were American companies, they frequently also
wind up getting the work that would go to Americans. Because of the
high level of American direct aid plus unique tax breaks for American
citizens who give money to Israel, Israelis have free medical care and
university education, benefits that few Americans enjoy.
And, finally, Israel is not afraid to bite the hand that feeds it. It is
annually rated by the FBI as the “friendly” country that is most
aggressive in spying to obtain US defense secrets and advanced
technology. The mainstream media is complicit in not featuring stories
that relate to Israeli espionage, but the cases number in the hundreds.
Several spies who have been caught in the act have received a slap on
the wrist instead of real punishment. One, Ben-Ami Kadish, was even
able to continue to receive his government pension after stealing and
passing on defense secrets.
Now I will be the first to admit that my narrative presented above
reveals my own biases in that I am appalled at what Israel and its
supporters have done to my country. But I have to believe that by any
objective standard, the relationship with Israel does nothing good for
the United States and does, instead, a great deal of damage. That
leading policymakers are afraid to challenge the billions of dollars
flowing to Tel Aviv while US senators line up to sign on to a letter that
opposes their own country’s interests is a tragedy of epic proportions.
That Washington will define its own interests in the Middle East largely
in terms of whether they are compatible with those of Israel is nothing
short of betrayal of the Constitution, which established a national
government that would benefit the American people and make them
both safe and prosperous. One hesitates to borrow rhetoric from the
neoconservatives, but sometimes even they get something right. It is
indeed time for a clean break, but this time with Israel.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is the Executive Director of the

Council for the National Interest. His “Deep Background” column
appears every month exclusively in The American Conservative.