Pressuring Israel May Prevent a 'Generational' Mideast War

[multi]

Alternet

Israel may well find itself at war with Syria and Hezbollah in the coming months, and the American foreign policy establishment needs to let go of its long-standing biases to prevent these conflicts.


The Middle East stands at the edge of an abyss, and the most powerful country in the world has become institutionally incapable of pulling it back.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that there "will be a war next summer. Only the sector has not been chosen yet." According to Israeli defense officials, "the IDF's operative assumption is that during the coming summer months, a war will break out against Hezbollah and perhaps against Syria as well."

America's best hope of containing the escalating tensions in the region would be to address the festering wound that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has represented for decades. Common sense dictates that the time has come for the United States to apply pressure on Israel to restart negotiations with the Palestinians equal to that already put on the Palestinians to recognize Israel and contain their violent factions.

That would mark a dramatic shift in policy, and would potentially transform Bush's smoldering wreckage of a Middle East agenda. It could also represent a turnaround in the larger struggle against Islamic extremism, pulling the world back from the brink of the real "Clash of Civilizations" that ideologues from both East and West apparently covet.

It would go a long way towards mending fences with our European allies -- Tony Blair said recently that "resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of bringing peace to the Middle East" -- and it would give the United States a golden bargaining chip to entice Iraq's neighbors to help clean up the mess we've made there. The Iraq Study Group -- the bipartisan, blue-ribbon bunch of Wise Old Men and Women -- concluded that we have little hope of stabilizing Iraq "unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict" and urged "renewed and sustained commitment by the United States on all fronts," including an aggressive push for "a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine."

Yet, it won't happen. Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, who explicitly linked Israel's conflict with Lebanon during the summer to George Bush's "War on Terror," quickly shot down the ISG's recommendations, rejecting "the attempt to create a linkage between the Iraqi issue and the Mideast issue."

And so it will be. Despite the fact that we've been very, very good to Israel for a very long time, it has become politically impossible to demand that our closest ally drop the almost impossible preconditions they've put on the Palestinians for rejoining the peace process. That's because key constituencies in both major parties -- traditional Jewish "Israel voters" for the Dems and evangelical "Christian Zionists" for the Republicans -- have pushed the debate in DC to such a degree that a balanced approach to the region is now impossible for the United States.

This spring, political scientists Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago created a firestorm with their study of the impact of the "Israel lobby" on U.S. foreign policy. Critics lambasted the two respected scholars, accusing them, as has become the norm, of perpetrating conspiracy theories and being closeted anti-Semites. But their point was simple. The Israel lobby, which they defined as a loosely allied group of advocacy organizations, have effectively created a rigid political orthodoxy in Washington, the result of which is that our government is now effectively incapable of pursuing U.S. interests in the Middle East if they conflict in any way with the policies of Israel's center-right governing coalition.

It would be hard to find a clearer validation of their argument than the knee-jerk rejection of the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the United States adopt a regional strategy towards stabilizing Iraq.

The Bush administration has gone further in giving Israel carte blanche in its handling of the situation in the Occupied Territories than his predecessors (including Reagan) ever did, authoring a dramatic shift in U.S. policy towards the region. The administration offered its "Roadmap" with much fanfare in 2002. But while the Bushies have condemned the Palestinians for straying from that plan, they've been silent as the Israelis have repeatedly and quite openly violated its tenets.

In April 2004, George W. Bush made a statement that sent shockwaves through the diplomatic community:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.

This was the moment when the United States gave up the pretense of being an honest broker in the conflict -- that pretense long being a hallmark of U.S. policy. More..

[Nicobie]

I think I've made my dislike of copy&paste well known.

However the above clip makes a bit of sense.

If the USA wants to win in the region, it needs to curtail it's monetary support of Israel NOW.

[multi]

Tony Blair said recently that "resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of bringing peace to the Middle East"

you tell 'em

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by multi

you tell 'em

LOL

[malvachat]

I watched this a while ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4

[multi]

saw that on the tele awhile ago.. very interesting stuff

[Nicobie]

I wonder why the US doesn't cut Israel off?

It is very obvious that it would be good for the US citizens. Might just be good for the rest of the world too.

[multi]

Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the USA guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. This Memorandum of Understanding is quietly renewed every five years. It commits U.S. taxpayers to maintain a strategic U.S. reserve for Israel, equivalent to $3 billion in 2002 dollars. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA. Moreover, the U.S. government agreed to divert oil from the USA, even if this causes domestic shortages. The U.S. government also guaranteed delivery of oil in U.S. tankers if commercial shippers become unable or unwilling to carry oil from the USA to Israel.



Memorandum of Agreement between the Governments of the United States of America and Israel - Oil, March 26, 1979

The oil supply arrangement of September 1, 1975, between the Governments of the United States and Israel, annexed hereto, remains in effect. A memorandum of agreement shall be agreed upon and concluded to provide an oil supply arrangement for a total of 15 years, including the 5 years provided in the September 1, 1975 arrangement.

The memorandum of agreement, including the commencement of this arrangement and pricing provisions, will be mutually agreed upon by the parties within sixty days following the entry into force of the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel.

It is the intention of the parties that prices paid by Israel for oil provided by the United States hereunder shall be comparable to world market prices current at the time of transfer, and that in any event the United States will be reimbursed by Israel for the costs incurred by the United States in providing oil to Israel hereunder.

Experts provided for in the September 1, 1975 arrangement will meet on request to discuss matters arising under this relationship.

The United States administration undertakes to seek promptly additional statutory authorization that may be necessary for full implementation of this arrangement.

M. Dayan
For the Government of Israel

Cyrus R. Vance [at the time, Secretary of State]
For the Government of the United States
Annex to the Memorandum of Agreement concerning 0il

ANNEX

Israel will make its own independent arrangements for oil supply to meet its requirements through normal procedures. In the event Israel is unable to secure its needs in this way, the United States Government, upon notification of this fact by the Government of Israel, will act as follows for five years, at the end of which period either side can terminate this arrangement on one-year's notice.

(a) If the oil Israel needs to meet all its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where no quantitative restrictions exist on the ability of the United States to procure oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel to meet all of the aforementioned normal requirements of Israel. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.

(b) If the oil Israel needs to meet all of its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where quantitative restrictions through embargo or otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel in accordance with the International Energy Agency conservation and allocation formula, as applied by the United States Government, in order to meet Israel's essential requirements. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.

Israeli and United States experts will meet annually or more frequently at the request of either party, to review Israel's continuing oil requirement.

Source: Israeli Foreign Ministry

A little about Cyrus R. Vance:

Cyrus Roberts Vance 1917-2002, U.S. secretary of state (1977-80) [when he signed the above memorandum], b. Clarksburg, W.Va., grad. Yale [it figures] (B.A., 1939, LL.B., 1942). After seeing action in the Navy during World War II, Vance practiced law, becoming a respected international lawyer. He entered government service as a Senate commiittee counsel in 1957. and later served in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as secretary of the army (1961-62), deputy secretary of defense (1964-67), and U.S. negotiator to the Paris Peace Conference on the Vietnam War (1968-69). He also served as special envoy to Cyprus (1967) and Korea (1968). As President Carter 's secretary of state, Vance opposed the 1980 attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran [I wonder why] and resigned after the mission failed. He subsequently served on several diplomatic missions, in particular as head of United Nations' efforts to negotiate an end to the violence following the dissolution of Yugoslavia (1991-92). At various times Vance also served on the boards of corporations, universities, foundations, and other organizations, and was chairman (1988-1990) of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../cdoilmou.html

[multi]

http://www.icomment.org/index.php/ma...ow?id=4824064&

[napho]

Originally Posted by Nicobie

If the USA wants to win in the region, it needs to curtail it's monetary support of Israel NOW.

That'll be the day. Even when the US "condemns" Israel occasionally, it does so by telling them in advance that they're going to have to criticize them to look less biased, and not to worry, it comes with some extra $$$.

[Nicobie]

ho

Originally Posted by napho

That'll be the day. Even when the US "condemns" Israel occasionally, it does so by telling them in advance that they're going to have to criticize them to look less biased, and not to worry, it comes with some extra $$$.

I call it extrs a$$ ho

[jcmd62]

Originally Posted by Nicobie

I wonder why the US doesn't cut Israel off?

It is very obvious that it would be good for the US citizens. Might just be good for the rest of the world too.

Abso-freakin-lutely!

Too bad it will never happen....

.....can you say Federal Reserve?.....

[malvachat]

I suspect a lot of people don't know the Federal Reserve is
a private/public company.
Or am I mistaken?
I'm sure I read it somewhere.
Might not be a credible source.
Still waiting for a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Here's a little something I did see about it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...10540567002553