#10 – The U.S. is an honest broker and has sought to bring about peace in the Middle East.
Claim:The U.S. is biased towards Israel
Why the U.S. supports Israel
The U.S. does not support Israel for the reasons the author asserts, which are purely subjective. The U.S. supports Israel because of common interests, values, and enemies. Israel is the only stable democracy in the middle-east where Arabs generally have more rights and freedoms than anywhere else in the middle-east. Israel shares the same western values as the U.S., in fact many Jews in Israel immigrated from the west. The U.S. and Israel are trade partners and share technologies, such as drone and missile guided tech which was invited in Israel. In fact many inventions and discoveries have come out of Israel that have benefited everyone. Israel has also emerged as an important niche defense supplier to the U.S. military. As strategic allies, Israel and the U.S. have been fighting common enemies, during the Cold War it was the Soviet Union (who backed the Arabs), in more recent times it is the Islamic terrorists. As such, we share intelligence on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and Middle Eastern politics.
The late editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley, said “He supported Israel for much the same reason he supported Great Britain, Poland and Taiwan -- because they were friends of the United States, because they were democracies, because they were places where his core beliefs in free men and free markets held sway. In this respect, and like so many of us who are friends of the Jewish state, he was not privy to an Israeli conspiracy but part of an American consensus.” (Source)
U.S. support for Arab countries
The U.S. has also given financial and military support to nearly every country in that region at one time or another. Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also lent to Israel. By comparison, the Arab states received nearly three times as much aid before 1971, $4.4 billion, or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike Israel, which receives nearly all its aid from the United States, Arab nations have gotten assistance from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the European Community (Source).
Palestinian aid
The U.S. also finances almost two-thirds of the budget for UNRWA, the UN agency that supported Palestinian refugees. Incidentally Israel has donated more money to UNRWA than most Arab states (Source). The Palestinians have been given more aide and money than most. The U.S. has committed more than 1.3 billion in economic assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since the end of 2000 Arab states have transferred to the PA monthly financial aid of $45 million The EU transfers to the PA approximately $9 million monthly (Source). Why do they do with this money? They spend it on things like terror tunnels that cost millions of dollars to build (Source).
The U.S. support for Israel
To say that the United States unabashedly supports Israel is not true. This has been especially true under the Obama administration, who has been described as the most Anti-Israel president in U.S. history. For instance in a 2012 speech to the UN, Obama declared, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” which he refered to as an occupation (Source). The relationship between President Obama and Prime Minster Netanyahu grew so cold that at one point it is reported Obama abruptly walked out of talks to have dinner with his family (Source). For all the support America has given Israel, they have still refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as that capital of Israel by placing the US embassy in Tel Aviv instead of Jerusalem. During the 2012 Democratic Nation Convention they voted to remove Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from their party platform, it was only by some snafu it was reinstated.
Charges against Israel
Israel is asserted to have blocked access of the Red Cross to wounded Palestinians. To make the assertion that Israel, through some sort of malice, intentionally withheld treatment of wounded civilians is not factual. Israel had routinely allowed for ceasefires to allow civilians to be treated. Could it be the IDF had good reasons to "temporarily" block access? Israel's ambassador Aharon Leshno-Yaar had said "Once the military activity was over, then it was possible for humanitarian teams to evacuate the wounded." The Red Cross could not help anyone if they themselves came under fire. Israel had previously made arrangements for ambulances to evacuate wounded Palestinians. In fact the Magen David Adom, the Israeli version of the Red Cross, has a clinic in Gaza. During Operation Cast Lead. Moshe Vaknin, the deputy director of the south district Magen David Adom (MDA), had transferred thousands of Palestinians from Gaza for care in Israeli hospitals. On the other hand Hamas did attempt to hijack ambulances:
"Mohammed Shriteh, 30, is an ambulance driver registered with and trained by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. His first day of work in the al-Quds neighbourhood was January 1, the sixth day of the war. "Mostly the war was not as fast or as chaotic as I expected," Mr Shriteh told the Herald. "We would co-ordinate with the Israelis before we pick up patients, because they have all our names, and our IDs, so they would not shoot at us."
Mr Shriteh said the more immediate threat was from Hamas, who would lure the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety." -(The Sydney Morning Herald)
Ambulances are not the only thing Hamas hijacks. Public Security Minister Avi Dichterhas has said "UN schools in Gaza long ago stopped being just schools," he added. "All these services and places are refuges for Hamas terrorists and commanders." Of hospitals he said it was common knowledge in Gaza that Hamas held meetings in the hospital, "it is somewhat of an open secret - that Hamas commanders walk around the hospital, in some instances wearing doctors' robes," he said. "In some cases the Hamas commanders kick medical teams out of rooms so that they can hold meetings." (Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2009)
Ban Ki-moon's statement condemning Israel for firing on a U.N. aid convoy were premature considering it's impossible to know all the facts on the very same day of the incident. In actuality only one Palestinian died, the other two were wounded from gun shots (not from a tank or shrapnel). According to a Jerusalem Post article (Source), the medic that took the Palestinian to the hospital said the truck had actually come under Hamas sniper fire. UNRAW spokesman Chris Gunness admits he is unsure of events saying the UN was keen to "clear the fog of war" and get to the bottom of the incident (Jerusalem Post, January 10, 2009). What is a war crime is Hamas indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian populations, recruiting children into armed conflict, and using civilians as human shields.
On the use of white phosphorus
The IDF’s investigation regarding Operation Cast Lead concluded that Israel operated in accordance with international law and was not guilty committing war crimes during the course of military operations. Four key points were giving regarding the use of white phosphorus:
-The use of weapons containing white phosphorus is standard, legal, and a tactic employed by other western militaries worldwide, including states that are signatories of the Third Protocol of the Convention Weapons (CCW).
-The IDF’s use of white phosphorus was in accordance with Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law, and more specifically, the obligations with regard to munitions with incendiary characteristics.
-The IDF uses white phosphorus as a smoke screen, and uses certain smoke bombs that contain elements of white phosphorus. These uses are standard and legal. The use of smoke obscurants proved to be a very effective means, and in many cases, prevented the need to use explosive munitions whose impact would have been considerably more dangerous.
-According to a Senior IDF Military Official, the IDF stopped using white phosphorus on January 7, 2009, despite its legality and tactical benefits, in response to the outrage in the media regarding its use. (Col. Shai Alkalai, April 22, 2009)
U.N. Bias
Despite Richard Goldstone has since recanted his claim that it was the Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, it has not stopped three other coauthors of the U.N. fact-finding mission to continue to criticize Israel. There is a definite UN bias against Israel when it becomes condemned more times than any other country, including North Korea, Iran, China, Syria, Cuba, or Sudan. Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed AGAINST Israel. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
“The Anti-Israel voting bloc inside the UN is comprised of Arab\Muslim countries that hate Israel and Anti-American\Communist countries. Tal Becker, legal advisor to Israel's permanent mission to the UN, visualizes this anti-Israel voting bloc as a series of "concentric circles." The smallest of the circles is the core of twenty Arab nations that constitute what is known as the "Arab group," which initiates the harshest condemnations of Israel. These countries are part of the larger fifty-six-member "Moslem group," all of whom can be counted on to consistently support anti-Israel resolutions. These fifty-six nations represent part of the "Non-Aligned" group of 115 largely third-world nations that formed during the Cold War and generally have voted as a group independent of Soviet or U.S. influence. And an even larger circle, considered the standard lineup against Israel, is composed of the 133 members of the G-77, which includes all of the developing countries.” -(Allison Kaplan Sommer)
U.S. peace efforts
The United States has been the only fair broker for peace in the Middle-East. As opposed to the European Union, Russia, and the UN which have had one-sided policies in the Middle-East detrimental to Israel, which have disqualified them as honest brokers. Ultimately it's up to the parties themselves to resolve their differences. While Israel has rejected some plans due to their one-sidedness, the Arab's have done their fair share of rejecting also:
-The Eisenhower Administration proposed a joint Arab-Israel use of the the Jordan River. Israel accepted, the Arab League rejected it.
-President Johnson outlined the five principles of peace, the first of which was "that every nation in the area has a fundamental right to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors.” The Arabs response was “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it. . . .”
-President Nixon's Secretary of State, William Roger's offered a plan for the Israelis to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, accept Palestinian Refugees, and allow Jordan a role in Jerusalem. Despite a very one-sided plan toward the Arab's they still rejected it.
-President Reagen announced a peace initiative the called for Palestinian self-rule in the territories in association with Jordan. The Arab's rejected it.
-At the 2000 Camp David Peace accords Olmert offered Arafat everything but the kitchen sink, and Arafat walked away from it, and shortly after started the Intifada.
In an effort for peace Ariel Sharon, in the belief that there was no reliable partner on the Palestinian side, unilaterally withdraw from Gaza on his own accord. Ehud Olmert intended to continue the policy of disengagement by unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank. The Palestinians would have gotten their wish at this point, but it was cut short by the unrelenting rocket attacks from the recently vacated Gaza. Such attacks made the Israelis rightly concerned that withdrawals from the West Bank would make Israel vulnerable to attack. History shows that when Israel withdrawals (such as in Gaza and Southern Lebanon) that Islamic terrorists quickly fill the vacuum and wage war against Israel.
Claim:The U.S. is biased towards Israel
Why the U.S. supports Israel
The U.S. does not support Israel for the reasons the author asserts, which are purely subjective. The U.S. supports Israel because of common interests, values, and enemies. Israel is the only stable democracy in the middle-east where Arabs generally have more rights and freedoms than anywhere else in the middle-east. Israel shares the same western values as the U.S., in fact many Jews in Israel immigrated from the west. The U.S. and Israel are trade partners and share technologies, such as drone and missile guided tech which was invited in Israel. In fact many inventions and discoveries have come out of Israel that have benefited everyone. Israel has also emerged as an important niche defense supplier to the U.S. military. As strategic allies, Israel and the U.S. have been fighting common enemies, during the Cold War it was the Soviet Union (who backed the Arabs), in more recent times it is the Islamic terrorists. As such, we share intelligence on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and Middle Eastern politics.
The late editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley, said “He supported Israel for much the same reason he supported Great Britain, Poland and Taiwan -- because they were friends of the United States, because they were democracies, because they were places where his core beliefs in free men and free markets held sway. In this respect, and like so many of us who are friends of the Jewish state, he was not privy to an Israeli conspiracy but part of an American consensus.” (Source)
U.S. support for Arab countries
The U.S. has also given financial and military support to nearly every country in that region at one time or another. Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also lent to Israel. By comparison, the Arab states received nearly three times as much aid before 1971, $4.4 billion, or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike Israel, which receives nearly all its aid from the United States, Arab nations have gotten assistance from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the European Community (Source).
Palestinian aid
The U.S. also finances almost two-thirds of the budget for UNRWA, the UN agency that supported Palestinian refugees. Incidentally Israel has donated more money to UNRWA than most Arab states (Source). The Palestinians have been given more aide and money than most. The U.S. has committed more than 1.3 billion in economic assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since the end of 2000 Arab states have transferred to the PA monthly financial aid of $45 million The EU transfers to the PA approximately $9 million monthly (Source). Why do they do with this money? They spend it on things like terror tunnels that cost millions of dollars to build (Source).
The U.S. support for Israel
To say that the United States unabashedly supports Israel is not true. This has been especially true under the Obama administration, who has been described as the most Anti-Israel president in U.S. history. For instance in a 2012 speech to the UN, Obama declared, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” which he refered to as an occupation (Source). The relationship between President Obama and Prime Minster Netanyahu grew so cold that at one point it is reported Obama abruptly walked out of talks to have dinner with his family (Source). For all the support America has given Israel, they have still refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as that capital of Israel by placing the US embassy in Tel Aviv instead of Jerusalem. During the 2012 Democratic Nation Convention they voted to remove Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from their party platform, it was only by some snafu it was reinstated.
Charges against Israel
Israel is asserted to have blocked access of the Red Cross to wounded Palestinians. To make the assertion that Israel, through some sort of malice, intentionally withheld treatment of wounded civilians is not factual. Israel had routinely allowed for ceasefires to allow civilians to be treated. Could it be the IDF had good reasons to "temporarily" block access? Israel's ambassador Aharon Leshno-Yaar had said "Once the military activity was over, then it was possible for humanitarian teams to evacuate the wounded." The Red Cross could not help anyone if they themselves came under fire. Israel had previously made arrangements for ambulances to evacuate wounded Palestinians. In fact the Magen David Adom, the Israeli version of the Red Cross, has a clinic in Gaza. During Operation Cast Lead. Moshe Vaknin, the deputy director of the south district Magen David Adom (MDA), had transferred thousands of Palestinians from Gaza for care in Israeli hospitals. On the other hand Hamas did attempt to hijack ambulances:
"Mohammed Shriteh, 30, is an ambulance driver registered with and trained by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. His first day of work in the al-Quds neighbourhood was January 1, the sixth day of the war. "Mostly the war was not as fast or as chaotic as I expected," Mr Shriteh told the Herald. "We would co-ordinate with the Israelis before we pick up patients, because they have all our names, and our IDs, so they would not shoot at us."
Mr Shriteh said the more immediate threat was from Hamas, who would lure the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety." -(The Sydney Morning Herald)
Ambulances are not the only thing Hamas hijacks. Public Security Minister Avi Dichterhas has said "UN schools in Gaza long ago stopped being just schools," he added. "All these services and places are refuges for Hamas terrorists and commanders." Of hospitals he said it was common knowledge in Gaza that Hamas held meetings in the hospital, "it is somewhat of an open secret - that Hamas commanders walk around the hospital, in some instances wearing doctors' robes," he said. "In some cases the Hamas commanders kick medical teams out of rooms so that they can hold meetings." (Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2009)
Ban Ki-moon's statement condemning Israel for firing on a U.N. aid convoy were premature considering it's impossible to know all the facts on the very same day of the incident. In actuality only one Palestinian died, the other two were wounded from gun shots (not from a tank or shrapnel). According to a Jerusalem Post article (Source), the medic that took the Palestinian to the hospital said the truck had actually come under Hamas sniper fire. UNRAW spokesman Chris Gunness admits he is unsure of events saying the UN was keen to "clear the fog of war" and get to the bottom of the incident (Jerusalem Post, January 10, 2009). What is a war crime is Hamas indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian populations, recruiting children into armed conflict, and using civilians as human shields.
On the use of white phosphorus
The IDF’s investigation regarding Operation Cast Lead concluded that Israel operated in accordance with international law and was not guilty committing war crimes during the course of military operations. Four key points were giving regarding the use of white phosphorus:
-The use of weapons containing white phosphorus is standard, legal, and a tactic employed by other western militaries worldwide, including states that are signatories of the Third Protocol of the Convention Weapons (CCW).
-The IDF’s use of white phosphorus was in accordance with Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law, and more specifically, the obligations with regard to munitions with incendiary characteristics.
-The IDF uses white phosphorus as a smoke screen, and uses certain smoke bombs that contain elements of white phosphorus. These uses are standard and legal. The use of smoke obscurants proved to be a very effective means, and in many cases, prevented the need to use explosive munitions whose impact would have been considerably more dangerous.
-According to a Senior IDF Military Official, the IDF stopped using white phosphorus on January 7, 2009, despite its legality and tactical benefits, in response to the outrage in the media regarding its use. (Col. Shai Alkalai, April 22, 2009)
U.N. Bias
Despite Richard Goldstone has since recanted his claim that it was the Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, it has not stopped three other coauthors of the U.N. fact-finding mission to continue to criticize Israel. There is a definite UN bias against Israel when it becomes condemned more times than any other country, including North Korea, Iran, China, Syria, Cuba, or Sudan. Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed AGAINST Israel. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
“The Anti-Israel voting bloc inside the UN is comprised of Arab\Muslim countries that hate Israel and Anti-American\Communist countries. Tal Becker, legal advisor to Israel's permanent mission to the UN, visualizes this anti-Israel voting bloc as a series of "concentric circles." The smallest of the circles is the core of twenty Arab nations that constitute what is known as the "Arab group," which initiates the harshest condemnations of Israel. These countries are part of the larger fifty-six-member "Moslem group," all of whom can be counted on to consistently support anti-Israel resolutions. These fifty-six nations represent part of the "Non-Aligned" group of 115 largely third-world nations that formed during the Cold War and generally have voted as a group independent of Soviet or U.S. influence. And an even larger circle, considered the standard lineup against Israel, is composed of the 133 members of the G-77, which includes all of the developing countries.” -(Allison Kaplan Sommer)
U.S. peace efforts
The United States has been the only fair broker for peace in the Middle-East. As opposed to the European Union, Russia, and the UN which have had one-sided policies in the Middle-East detrimental to Israel, which have disqualified them as honest brokers. Ultimately it's up to the parties themselves to resolve their differences. While Israel has rejected some plans due to their one-sidedness, the Arab's have done their fair share of rejecting also:
-The Eisenhower Administration proposed a joint Arab-Israel use of the the Jordan River. Israel accepted, the Arab League rejected it.
-President Johnson outlined the five principles of peace, the first of which was "that every nation in the area has a fundamental right to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors.” The Arabs response was “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it. . . .”
-President Nixon's Secretary of State, William Roger's offered a plan for the Israelis to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, accept Palestinian Refugees, and allow Jordan a role in Jerusalem. Despite a very one-sided plan toward the Arab's they still rejected it.
-President Reagen announced a peace initiative the called for Palestinian self-rule in the territories in association with Jordan. The Arab's rejected it.
-At the 2000 Camp David Peace accords Olmert offered Arafat everything but the kitchen sink, and Arafat walked away from it, and shortly after started the Intifada.
In an effort for peace Ariel Sharon, in the belief that there was no reliable partner on the Palestinian side, unilaterally withdraw from Gaza on his own accord. Ehud Olmert intended to continue the policy of disengagement by unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank. The Palestinians would have gotten their wish at this point, but it was cut short by the unrelenting rocket attacks from the recently vacated Gaza. Such attacks made the Israelis rightly concerned that withdrawals from the West Bank would make Israel vulnerable to attack. History shows that when Israel withdrawals (such as in Gaza and Southern Lebanon) that Islamic terrorists quickly fill the vacuum and wage war against Israel.
