America's Best Ally

So why do we give egypt money?WikiLeaks: Egypt Still Sees Israel as Main Enemy
Egypt's military, the biggest recipient of U.S. military aid after Israel, is in decline, according to U.S. diplomatic memos leaked this month. The U.S. has been pressing Egypt to focus its military toward terrorism, halting cross-border smuggling and helping out in regional crises. To the dismay of the Americans, the Egyptian military continues to see Israel as its primary adversary 31 years after the two neighbors signed a peace treaty.
"The United States has sought to interest the Egyptian military into expanding their mission in ways that reflect new regional and transnational security threats, such as piracy, border security, and counterterrorism," said a memo dated Dec. 21, 2008. "But the aging leadership, however, has resisted our efforts and remained satisfied with continuing to do what they have done for years: train for force-on-force warfare with a premium on ground forces and armor."
Egyptian military officials don't welcome pressure by the Americans to change the doctrine of their armed forces. Hossam Sweilam, a retired Egyptian army general, said, "The U.S. should not impose on us reformulating our military the way it wants, which we think is ultimately what suits Israel and we don't want to do what suits Israel." (AP)

Israel: Not Just a Strategic Asset, But a Strategic Bonanza - Robert Satloff (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)
It is to America's advantage to have a nation of friends, whose people and government are firm supporters of and advocates for American interests in the broader Middle East. There is no country in the Middle East whose people and government are so closely aligned with the U.S.
A commonality of culture and values manifests itself in many ways, from how Israel votes at the UN to how its people view their role as being on the front line against many of the same threats we face.
It is to America's advantage to have in Israel an economy that is so closely associated with ours and that is such an innovator in the IT field, in high-tech medicine, and in green technologies, like the electric car. The Obama administration made the economic health and well-being of the U.S. the pillar of its National Security Strategy.
Israel - through its intelligence, its technology, and the lessons learned from its own experience in counterterrorism and asymmetric warfare - has saved American lives. And when you add to this Israel's unique counterproliferation efforts - destroying nuclear reactors in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007) - Israel's contribution to our security is even greater.
What we really need in the Middle East are more "Israels" - more strong, reliable, democratic, pro-American allies. It would certainly be nice to have one or two in the Gulf. What we should really want as allies are countries that, with a strong America behind them, can take care of themselves and project our basic values in the process.
The writer is executive director of the Washington Institute.

WASHINGTON – The US does not see solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a magic bullet for resolving the region’s other woes, a top White House official said Monday, pushing back against perceptions that the Obama administration had linked the conflict to other issues.

“We do not believe that resolving this conflict will bring an end to all conflicts in the Middle East,” Dan Shapiro, the National Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East, told an Anti-Defamation League conference. “We do not believe it would cause Iran to end its unacceptable pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Shapiro also emphasized, to applause from the audience, that “we do not believe that this conflict endangers the lives of US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Israel as a Security Asset for the United States: Statement by 50 retired
U.S. Flag & General Officers

In response to the recent ridiculous treatment Israel has gotten from the
Obama administration, a group of about 50 retired United States generals and
admirals put together the following letter urging him as well as Congress
and the general American public to recognize how truly intertwined Israel's
success is with America's
. Here, is the unedited letter, directly from the

Israel as a Security Asset for the United States
We, the undersigned, have traveled to Israel over the years with The Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). We brought with us our
decades of military experience and, following unrestricted access to
Israel's civilian and military leaders, came away with the unswerving belief
that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to
the United States and its policy in the Middle East and Eastern
Mediterranean. A strong, secure Israel is an asset upon which American
military planners and political leaders can rely. Israel is a democracy - a
rare and precious commodity in the region - and Israel shares our commitment
to freedom, personal liberty and rule of law.

Throughout our travels and our talks, the determination of Israelis to
protect their country and to pursue a fair and workable peace with their
neighbors was clearly articulated. Thus we view the current tension between
the United States and Israel with dismay and grave concern that political
differences may be allowed to outweigh our larger mutual interests.

As American defense professionals, we view events in the Middle East through
the prism of American security interests.

The United States and Israel established security cooperation during the
Cold War, and today the two countries face the common threat of terrorism by
those who fear freedom and liberty. Historically close cooperation between
the United States. and Israel at all levels including the IDF, military
research and development, shared intelligence and bilateral military
training exercises enhances the security of both countries. American police
and law enforcement officials have reaped the benefit of close cooperation
with Israeli professionals in the areas of domestic counter-terrorism
practices and first response to terrorist attacks.

Israel and the United States are drawn together by shared values and shared
threats to our well-being.

The proliferation of weapons and nuclear technology across the Middle East
and Asia, and the ballistic missile technology to deliver systems across
wide areas require cooperation in intelligence, technology and security
policy. Terrorism, as well as the origins of financing, training and
executing terrorist acts, need to be addressed multilaterally when possible.
The dissemination of hatred and support of terrorism by violent extremists
in the name of Islam, whether state or non-state actors, must be addressed
as a threat to global peace.

In the Middle East, a volatile region so vital to U.S. interests, it would
be foolish to disengage - or denigrate - an ally such as Israel.


Lieutenant General Mark Anderson, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral Charles Beers, USN (ret.)

General William Begert, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral Stanley W. Bryant, USN (ret.)

Lieutenant General Anthony Burshnick, USAF (ret.)

Lieutenant General Paul Cerjan, USA (ret.)

Admiral Leon Edney, USN (ret.)

Brigadier General William F. Engel, USA (ret.)

Major General Bobby Floyd, USAF (ret.)

General John Foss, USA (ret.)

Major General Paul Fratarangelo, USMC (ret.)

Major General David Grange, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Tom Griffin, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Earl Hailston, USMC (ret.)

Lieutenant General John Hall, USAF (ret.)

General Alfred Hansen, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral James Hinkle, USN (ret.)

General Hal Hornburg, USAF (ret.)

Major General James T. Jackson, USA (ret.)

Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (ret.)

Rear Admiral Herb Kaler, USN (ret.)

Vice Admiral Bernard Kauderer, USN (ret.)

General William F. Kernan, USA (ret.)

Major General Homer Long, USA (ret.)

Major General Jarvis Lynch, USMC (ret.)

General Robert Magnus, USMC (ret.)

Lieutenant General Charles May, Jr., USAF (ret.)

Vice Admiral Martin Mayer, USN (ret.)

Major General James McCombs, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC (ret.)

Rear Admiral W. F. Merlin, USCG (ret.)

Rear Admiral Mark Milliken, USN (ret.)

Rear Admiral Riley Mixson, USN (ret.)

Major General William Moore, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Carol Mutter, USMC (ret.)

Major General Larry T. Northington, USAF (ret.)

Lieutenant General Tad Oelstrom, USAF (ret.)

Major General James D. Parker, USA (ret.)

Vice Admiral J. T. Parker, USN (ret.)

Major General Robert Patterson, USAF (ret.)

Vice Admiral James Perkins, USN (ret.)

Rear Admiral Brian Peterman, USCG (ret.)

Lieutenant General Alan V. Rogers, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral Richard Rybacki, USCG (ret.)

General Crosbie Saint, USA (ret.)

Rear Admiral Norm Saunders, USCG (ret.)

General Lawrence Skantze, USAF (ret.)

Major General Sid Shachnow, USA (ret.)

Rear Admiral Jeremy Taylor, USN (ret.)

Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (ret.)

Lieutenant General Lanny Trapp, USAF (ret.)

Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle, USN (ret.)

General Louis Wagner, USA (ret.)

Rear Admiral Thomas Wilson, USN (ret.)

Lieutenant General Robert Winglass, USMC (ret.)

Rear Admiral Guy Zeller, USN (ret.)

- signatures as of April 7, 2010

Source: JINSA

<b>Obama endangers US National security by undermining Israel
Caroline Glick | Israel's status as the US's most vital ally in the Middle East has been so widely recognized for so long that over the years, Israeli and American leaders alike have felt it unnecessary to explain what it is about the alliance that makes it so important for the US.

Today, as the Obama administration is openly distancing the US from Israel while giving the impression that Israel is a strategic impediment to the administration's attempts to strengthen its relations with the Arab world, recalling why Israel is the US's most important ally in the Middle East has become a matter of some urgency.

Much is made of the fact that Israel is a democracy. But we seldom consider why the fact that Israel is a representative democracy matters. The fact that Israel is a democracy means that its alliance with America reflects the will of the Israeli people. As such, it remains constant regardless of who is power in Jerusalem.

All of the US's other alliances in the Middle East are with authoritarian regimes whose people do not share the pro-American views of their leaders. The death of leaders or other political developments are liable to bring about rapid and dramatic changes in their relations with the US.

For instance, until 1979, Iran was one of the US's closest strategic allies in the region. Owing to the gap between the Iranian people and their leadership, the Islamic revolution put an end to the US-Iran alliance.

Egypt flipped from a bitter foe to an ally of the US when Gamal Abdel Nasser died in 1969. Octogenarian President Hosni Mubarak's encroaching death is liable to cause a similar shift in the opposite direction.

Instability in the Hashemite kingdom in Jordan and the Saudi regime could transform those countries from allies to adversaries.

Only Israel, where the government reflects the will of the people is a reliable, permanent US ally.

America reaps the benefits of its alliance with Israel every day. As the US suffers from chronic intelligence gaps, Israel remains the US's most reliable source for accurate intelligence on the US's enemies in the region.

Israel is the US's only ally in the Middle East that always fights its own battles. Indeed, Israel has never asked the US for direct military assistance in time of war. Since the US and Israel share the same regional foes, when Israel is called upon to fight its enemies, its successes redound to the US's benefit.

Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

Here it bears recalling Israel's June 1982 destruction of Syria's Soviet-made anti-aircraft batteries and the Syrian air force. Those stunning Israeli achievements were the first clear demonstration of the absolute superiority of US military technology over Soviet military technology. Many have argued that it was this Israeli demonstration of Soviet technological inferiority that convinced the Reagan administration it was possible to win the Cold War.

In both military and non-military spheres, Israeli technological achievements - often developed with US support - are shared with America. The benefits the US has gained from Israeli technological advances in everything from medical equipment to microchips to pilotless aircraft are without peer worldwide.

Beyond the daily benefits the US enjoys from its close ties with Israel, the US has three fundamental, permanent, vital national security interests in the Middle East. A strong Israel is a prerequisite for securing all of these interests.

America's three permanent strategic interests in the Middle East are as follows:

1 - Ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region to global consumers through the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal.

2 - Preventing the most radical regimes, sub-state and non-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.

3 - Maintaining the US's capacity to project its power to the region.

A strong Israel is the best guarantor of all of these interests. Indeed, the stronger Israel is, the more secure these vital American interests are. Three permanent and unique aspects to Israel's regional position dictate this state of affairs.

1 - As the first target of the most radical regimes and radical sub-state actors in the region, Israel has a permanent, existential interest in preventing these regimes and sub-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.

Israel's 1981 airstrike that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor prevented Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite US condemnation at the time, the US later acknowledged that the strike was a necessary precondition to the success of Operation Desert Storm ten years later. Richard Cheney - who served as secretary of defense during Operation Desert Storm - has stated that if Iraq had been a nuclear power in 1991, the US would have been hard pressed to eject Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army from Kuwait and so block his regime from asserting control over oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.

2 - Israel is a non-expansionist state and its neighbors know it. In its 62 year history, Israel has only controlled territory vital for its national security and territory that was legally allotted to it in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate which has never been abrogated or superseded.

Israel's strength, which it has used only in self-defense, is inherently non-threatening. Far from destabilizing the region, a strong Israel stabilizes the Middle East by deterring the most radical actors from attacking.

In 1970, Israel blocked Syria's bid to use the PLO to overthrow the Hashemite regime in Jordan. Israel's threat to attack Syria not only saved the Hashemites then, it has deterred Syria from attempting to overthrow the Jordanian regime ever since.

Similarly, Israel's neighbors understand that its purported nuclear arsenal is a weapon of national survival and hence they view it as non-threatening. This is the reason Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal has never spurred a regional nuclear arms race.

In stark contrast, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a regional nuclear arms race will ensue immediately.

Although they will never admit it, Israel's non-radical neighbors feel more secure when Israel is strong. On the other hand, the region's most radical regimes and non-state actors will always seek to emasculate Israel.

3-- Since as the Jewish state Israel is the regional bogeyman, no Arab state will agree to form a permanent alliance with it. Hence, Israel will never be in a position to join forces with another nation against a third nation.

In contrast, the Egyptian-Syrian United Arab Republic of the 1960s was formed to attack Israel. Today, the Syrian-Iranian alliance is an inherently aggressive alliance against Israel and the non-radical Arab states in the region. Recognizing the stabilizing force of a strong Israel, the moderate states of the region prefer for Israel to remain strong.

From the US's perspective, far from impairing its alliance-making capabilities in the region, by providing military assistance to Israel, America isn't just strengthening the most stabilizing force in the region. It is showing all states and non-state actors in the greater Middle East it is trustworthy.

On the other hand, every time the US seeks to attenuate its ties with Israel, it is viewed as an untrustworthy ally by the nations of the Middle East. US hostility towards Israel causes Israel's neighbors to hedge their bets by distancing themselves from the US lest America abandon them to their neighboring adversaries.

A strong Israel empowers the relatively moderate actors in the region to stand up to the radical actors in the region because they trust Israel to keep the radicals in check. Today's regional balance of power in which the moderates have the upper hand over the radicals is predicated on a strong Israel.

On the other hand, when Israel is weakened the radical forces are emboldened to threaten the status quo. Regional stability is thrown asunder. Wars become more likely. Attacks on oil resources increase. The most radical sub-state actors and regimes are emboldened.

To the extent that the two-state solution assumes that Israel must contract itself to within the indefensible 1949 ceasefire lines, and allow a hostile Palestinian state allied with terrorist organizations to take power in the areas it vacates, the two-state solution is predicated on making Israel weak and empowering radicals. In light of this, the two-state solution as presently constituted is antithetical to America's most vital strategic interests in the Middle East.

When we bear in mind the foundations for the US's alliance with Israel, it is obvious that US support for Israel over the years has been the most cost-effective national security investment in post-World War II US history.

who votes with the US who votes against?

How Does Israel Vote?
1999 Israel voted WITH America 90% of the time!
2000 Israel voted WITH America 96.2% of the time!
2001 Israel voted WITH America 100% of the time!
2002 Israel voted WITH America 92.6% of the time!
2003 Israel voted WITH America 89% of the time!
Israel is America's Most Loyal Ally!

How do other "friends of America vote?
Great Britain voted with America 60% of the time.
Australia voted with America 56% of the time.
France voted with America 54% of the time.
Canada voted with America 49% of the time.
Japan voted with America 42% of the time.

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States

And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States

Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States

Receives $143,699,000 annually.

Would a Palestinian State Solve America´s Middle-East Problems?

Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker
April 09, 2010
Given the current view espoused in much of the media that the Palestinian-Israeli squabble is the root of all or much of America´s poor image in the Arab world, we might want to examine whether creating a Palestinian state—in whichever form of borders—would indeed solve the problems that the United States finds itself confronting in the Middle-East, and whether the creation of a Palestinian state would improve America´s popularity in the region. Will a sovereign Palestinian state solve America´s problems, or will it create more headaches for Uncle Sam?

Before one can answer these questions it is necessary to address the question of what the term "Palestinian state" means. Currently there are two Palestinian areas—Gaza and the West Bank. At the present time these two regions are governed by very different entities: Hamas—the Palestinian chapter of the Moslem Brotherhood, which categorically denies Israel´s right to existence—controls Gaza, and the secular nationalist Fatah, which pretends to tolerate a Jewish state—at least to the extent that it may be willing once again to enter into negotiations with the State of Israel—controls the West Bank. Currently the two Palestinian parties are much divided and seem only united in their disdain of Israel. That commonality has not been enough to unite them in anything else. As a result of this division, Israel has no negotiation partner in Gaza, and a skittish, very reluctant addressee in the West Bank.

But, despite the situation today on the ground being what it is, we may still ask our original set of questions: would the creation of a Palestinian state solve America´s problems in the Middle-East? Put succinctly: no, a Palestinian state will not solve America´s problems in the area; indeed it may only serve to compound them. The rejectionists—the radical Islamic front—Syria, Iran, Turkey, Sudan, (at times Libya), Hizballah, Hamas, al-Jihad al-Islami (PIJ), al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the various Salafi and other jihadi groups reject the West; Palestine is a convenient focal point, but it is not the prime concern of these anti-Western nations and terror organizations. Even were Israel to cease to exist, these groups and nations would still be opposed to—as Iran commonly terms it—the "Global Arrogance", aka the United States. So, for this group of players, Palestine is a convenient rallying concern, but in reality its status is irrelevant to the antagonism that the members of this group feel towards the West in general and to the U.S. in particular. Indeed, creating a Palestinian state that doesn´t unequivocally recognize Israel´s right to exist as a Jewish state would only serve to strengthen the resolve of the radical Islamic front whose identity is centered in the idea of rejecting any accommodation with the West as its members slowly develop the power to overcome and dominate the West on the way to creating a worldwide Islamic empire.

Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and to a certain degree Libya, sit on the fence. Libya is still trying to rehabilitate its image, but Muammar Gaddafi is mercurial and despite making noise about Arab solidarity and solidarity with the Palestinians is not really that concerned about their situation. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates talk about Arab solidarity and their desire to see a Palestinian state before they are willing to normalize relations with Israel, but under the table are co-operating and doing some business with Israel while praying that Israel will solve their Iran problem. They are not incognizant that a Palestinian state will not make it any easier for Israel to solve the Iranian problem. Saudi Arabia financially supports a variety of Sunni Islamist groups and promotes Wahabi madrassas throughout the Muslim world, but its ruling family looks to the West (including Israel) for help in fighting Salafi and Iranian sponsored terrorists that threaten their interests and stability.

This leaves us now with Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and to a certain extent Iraq—assuming that Ayad Allawi and the Iraqiya party succeed in forming a moderate government. The first three have peaceful relations with Israel (Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel) and an Allawi-led Iraqi government would probably fit into the Egypt-Jordan axis. These four nations all reject Islamic fundamentalism as represented by the Moslem Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since a Palestinian state that includes Gaza would include an Iranian-supported Hamas-dominated government, these four nations would regard such a Palestinian state as a source of trouble and may not really desire its creation despite all their public statements to the contrary. Certainly to date Egypt has shown very little solidarity with Palestinian Gaza under Hamas´ rule, maintaining a blockade of Gaza far more stringent than that imposed by Israel.

There is also the sad fact that none of the Arab countries are democracies (with the possible exception of Iraq if it emerges with a moderate government). These monarchies and oligarchies (particularly Ba´athist Syria) have needed Israel as a scapegoat in order to divert attention away from their own problems. Real concern for the "plight of the Palestinian refugees" is lacking throughout the Arab world; nowhere have the Palestinians received citizenship in their "brotherly Arab" host countries. Even the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, whose East Bank population is 60% Palestinian, recently revoked the citizenship of any Palestinian that did not live within the Kingdom before June 1967.

Creating a Palestinian state would remove the "Palestinian question" from the Arab public agenda, thereby allowing the citizens of each Arab state to focus their attention on the corruption and lack of human rights in their own lands. That is a situation that most Arab leaders do not want to face; therefore, maintaining antagonism against the "Zionist entity", aka Israel, creates definite advantages for these Arab rulers.

While this quick survey has not examined all Arab and Moslem states, it has demonstrated that key Arab and Moslem nations are not likely to change their approach to the West and to the United States because of the creation of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian issue serves as a convenient focal point, but it is not the root of the problem and "solving it" improperly—that is without "de-radicalizing" the Palestinians—will not solve America´s problems at all; it may make things worse: first by introducing another radical nation-state, and secondly by giving the radicals the impression that they are winning, thus emboldening them to a greater degree.

What Washington and most of Europe appear to fail to understand is that the Palestinians and their rejectionist front supporters refuse to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. That continued refusal for well over a century is what serves to fuel Israel´s reluctance to return to the untenable-1967 borders. Continual terrorist attacks as well as a non-stop campaign of virulent anti-Semitic incitement from the Palestinian side (as well as much of the Arab and Moslem media) causes Israelis and many of Israel´s supporters to maintain a fortress mentality.

The shame here is that the Palestinians have failed to find leaders that are willing to rise above the use of incitement and also are corruption-proof. There is no argument that Palestinians deserve autonomy in their lives and that the occupation (this refers to the West Bank as Gaza has not been occupied since 2005) is burdensome to the average Palestinian. However, until the Palestinians reject incitement to violence against Israelis and/or Jews, reject corruption in their leaders, and agree to respect the right of a Jewish state to exist, Israel will find it impossible to agree to Palestinian sovereignty. If America and Europe want to help birth a viable sovereign Palestinian state, it would behoove them to emphasize that message very clearly to the Palestinians and other Arab states. If and when the Palestinians and their friends finally absorb that message and actualize it, they will find that a peace agreement with Israel will not be that difficult to forge.

Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker is founder and Chairman of the Board of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching our elected officials and the public of the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism and the need to establish genuine democratic institutions in the Middle-East as an antidote to the venom of fundamentalism. He may be contacted at

Gen. Petraeus: Israel Is a Valued Strategic Ally; Never Said Lack of Peace Deal Puts U.S. Soldiers at Risk
Gen. David Petraeus told the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington on Tuesday he never claimed that inaction toward a Middle East peace deal puts American soldiers at risk, and that he does not blame Israel for the lack of a deal so far. He said a policy statement he submitted to Congress last month was misconstrued and misquoted, and said that in hindsight he wishes his statement had made clear that Israel is a valued strategic ally and will remain one. (AP-MSNBC)

Friday, March 26, 2010
How Israel saves US lives and is an asset

Dore Gold
Netanyahu argued at AIPAC that Israel has actually helped save the lives of Americans. Historically, he is absolutely correct to paint Israel’s strategic partnership this way. In August 1966, the Mossad succeeded in recruiting an Iraqi Air Force pilot who flew his MiG-21 to Israel.

The intelligence on the MiG-21 was shared with Washington and would prove to be extremely valuable, considering the fact that the MiG-21 was the work-horse of the North Vietnamese Air Force in the years that followed.

Israel supplied the Americans with many other Soviet weapons systems, from 130mm artillery to T-72 tanks. Gen. George Keegan, the former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, was quoted in the New York Times on March 9, 1986, saying that the intelligence the U.S. received from Israel could not have been obtained if the U.S. had “five CIAs.”

Keegan went further: “The ability of the U.S. Air Force in particular, and the Army in general, to defend whatever position it has in NATO owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence.”

Even after the Cold War, Israel continues to be a vital American strategic partner. In 2007, the U.S. ambassador to Israel revealed that Israeli technology was being used by the U.S. armed forces in Iraq to protect them from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) that were responsible for most U.S. casualties in the Iraq War.

In short, Israel was helping save American lives in Iraq.

On March 15, 2007, the commander of EUCOM, Gen. Bantz Craddock, told the House Armed Services Committee that “in the Middle East, Israel is the U.S.’s closest ally that consistently and directly supports our interests.”

During his AIPAC speech, Netanyahu disclosed: “Israel shares with America everything” that it knows about their common enemies, especially intelligence.

When states like the U.S. and Israel have high-profile diplomatic disagreements, it is sometimes the nature of the press to seek the dramatic. A learned debate about the applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention to Jerusalem would be fitting for Yale Law School, but it does not sell newspapers.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:
Posted by truth seeker at 8:44 AM 0 comments
Thursday, March 25, 2010
About Gen. Petraeus
Recent quotes attributed to Gen. David Petraeus made it sound as if the head of U.S. Central Command believed a close U.S.-Israel relationship was bad for U.S. interests. Philip Klein writes at the American Spectator:

But on Wednesday, Petraeus poured cold water on the controversy, explaining in detail why "all three items...were wrong, frankly."
on Israel

By Philip Klein on 3.25.10 @ 6:09AM

Earlier this month, a posting on the Foreign Policy website caused a firestorm by reporting that in January, Gen. David Petraeus “sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers.”

According to the dispatch by Mark Perry (an advocate of talks with terrorist groups), Petraeus requested that the West Bank and Gaza be shifted to his Central Command (from European Command) so that the U.S. military could “be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.”

The report, which was presented as context for the recent blowup between the Obama administration and Israel, was quickly seized on by critics of Israel as confirmation of their view that U.S. support for Israel hinders America’s national security interests.

Soon, other blogs followed up by reporting that Petraeus echoed this sentiment in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. For instance, in a post titled, “Petraeus Makes His Move,” Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall wrote, “Now we have (Petraeus) saying it in his own words.”

But on Wednesday, Petraeus poured cold water on the controversy, explaining in detail why “all three items...were wrong, frankly.”

Petraeus made the remarks in response to a question by TAS at a press briefing held prior to a scheduled appearance St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. (Watch video of the full exchange here.)

To start with, Petraeus said he never requested to have the West Bank and Gaza added to his responsibilities as leader of the military’s Central Command. He said that “every year or so” commanders submit a plan that takes a geographic look at their areas of responsibility, and then there’s discussion about whether it would make sense to redraw the boundaries. For instance, he said, last time Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti were shifted to the Africa Command.

“Typically, there’s a question of should we ask to have Israel and Palestinian territories included, because what goes on there is obviously of enormous interest to the rest of the Central Command area, which is the bulk of the Arab world,” Petraeus said. However, he emphasized that it was “flat wrong” to claim he actually requested responsibility for the areas.

He said the report was “based on ‘bad gouges,’ as a sailor would say -- bad information.”

He also refuted the claim that he had sent a request to the White House, saying he “very rarely” sends things to the President, and only does so if he’s specifically asked.

In addition, he explained that the quote that bloggers attributed to his Senate testimony was actually plucked out of context from a report that Central Command had sent the Armed Services committee.

“There’s a 56-page document that we submitted that has a statement in it that describes various factors that influence the strategic context in which we operate and among those we listed the Mideast peace process,” he said. “We noted in there that there was a perception at times that America sides with Israel and so forth. And I mean, that is a perception. It is there. I don’t think that’s disputable. But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it. And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly.”

He also noted that there were plenty of other important factors that were mentioned in the report, including “a whole bunch of extremist organizations, some of which by the way deny Israel’s right to exist. There’s a country that has a nuclear program who denies that the Holocaust took place.”

Petraeus continued, “So we have all the factors in there, but this is just one, and it was pulled out of this 56-page document, which was not what I read to the Senate at all.”

In an effort to tamp down the controversy, Petraeus said, he spoke to Gabi Ashkenazi, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, and reassured him that the reports were inaccurate. He also said he sent Ashkenazi a blog post written by Max Boot of Commentary, which he said “astutely” picked apart the erroneous information that’s been floating around.
Posted by truth seeker at 1:45 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
US uses Israeli innovations

U.S. Aviation Security Pick Favors Israeli Model (Reuters)
Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Robert Harding, President Obama's nominee to oversee security at U.S. airports, said on Tuesday he wants to shift screening closer to the Israeli model to include more behavior detection in a bid to thwart terrorism plots.
"We should move even closer to an Israeli model where there's more engagement with passengers," Harding told the Senate Commerce
Posted by truth seeker at 9:04 AM 0 comments

Daily alert march 24 2010

Diplomatic Dispute Obscures Israel's Invaluable Help to U.S. Military - Dore Gold (Washington Examiner)

* During the recent bilateral tensions between the Obama administration and the Israeli government, a vicious rumor began to spread that the U.S. feels that Israeli "intransigence" in the peace process puts U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk. For years, there has been a whole cottage industry of anti-Israel forces who have been trying to promote the image of Israel as a strategic burden rather than as a strategic asset.
* As Netanyahu argued at AIPAC, Israel has actually helped save the lives of Americans. In August 1966, the Mossad succeeded in recruiting an Iraqi Air Force pilot who flew his MiG-21 to Israel. The intelligence on the MiG-21 was shared with Washington and would prove to be extremely valuable, as the MiG-21 was the work-horse of the North Vietnamese Air Force in the years that followed.
* Israel supplied the Americans with many other Soviet weapons systems, from 130mm artillery to T-72 tanks. Gen. George Keegan, the former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, was quoted in the New York Times on March 9, 1986, as saying that the intelligence the U.S. received from Israel could not have been obtained if the U.S. had "five CIAs."
* Even after the Cold War, Israel continues to be a vital American strategic partner. In 2007, the U.S. ambassador to Israel revealed that Israeli technology was being used by the U.S. armed forces in Iraq to protect them from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) that were responsible for most U.S. casualties in the Iraq War. On March 15, 2007, the commander of EUCOM, Gen. Bantz Craddock, told the House Armed Services Committee that "in the Middle East, Israel is the U.S.'s closest ally that consistently and directly supports our interests."
* During his AIPAC speech, Netanyahu disclosed: "Israel shares with America everything" that it knows about their common enemies, especially intelligence. Both sides need to make sure that unnecessary diplomatic tensions do not sacrifice their long-held strategic interests that have served the security of both countries.

Dore Gold, who served as Israel's ambassador to the UN, heads the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.