Do we ‘have Israel’s back’?

By: Vic Rosenthal

Published: September 3rd, 2012

You are currently on page: 1 2 All Pages

tell a friend

Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, right, and U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey in Tel Aviv, Jan. 20, 2012.
Photo Credit: Gideon Markowicz/FLASH90

There should not be a shred of doubt by now: when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back. — Barack Obama, March 4, 2012

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is the top military adviser to the President (although he is not directly part of the chain of command). Last week in London he said,

[An Israeli attack would] clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear programme … I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.

One wonders what complicity would consist of. Using American forces to assist Israel in an attack? Striking back at Iran? Providing weapons or aircraft? Providing intelligence information? Even resupplying Israeli forces with ammunition or spare parts in the event of a protracted war? Dempsey didn’t say, but the message implicit in the statement is “if you start it, you will be on your own,” which is hardly consistent with the President’s remark about having Israel’s back.

Does this represent administration thinking? This weekend the White House had the opportunity to walk back Dempsey’s remark, but the best spokesman Jay Carney could do was this:

Cooperation with Israel between our military and intelligence communities has never been closer … Assistance provided to Israel by the United States has never been greater than it has been under President [Barack] Obama. We have an extremely close relationship with Israel, which is appropriate given our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

Really? A joint American-Israeli missile defense exercise that was planned for October has been greatly scaled down, according to a report in Time Magazine:

The reductions are striking. Instead of the approximately 5,000 U.S. troops originally trumpeted for Austere Challenge 12, as the annual exercise is called, the Pentagon will send only 1,500 service members, and perhaps as few as 1,200. Patriot anti-missile systems will arrive in Israel as planned, but the crews to operate them will not. Instead of two Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships being dispatched to Israeli waters, the new plan is to send one, though even the remaining vessel is listed as a “maybe,” according to officials in both militaries. [my emphasis]

In Israel gas masks are being distributed and bomb shelters in places like Tel Aviv, unused for years, are being cleared of junk and prepared for use. I’m sure a few more operational Patriot systems would be welcome.

PM Netanyahu reportedly had an angry exchange with US Ambassador Dan Shapiro earlier this week about the US commitment to prevent Iran from going nuclear:

A source that participated in the meeting said that a particularly angry and stressed Netanyahu began a tirade against the US president, attacking him for not doing enough on Iran. “Instead of pressuring Iran in an effective way, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities,” the source quoted Netanyahu as saying. [my emphasis]

Angered about continued US rhetoric that diplomacy needs more time to work, Netanyahu said flatly: “Time has run out,” Yediot reported.

The American ambassador is said to have responded politely but firmly, telling Netanyahu that he was distorting Obama’s position. Obama promised not to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, he explained, and left all options on the table, including military options.

At that point, diplomatic sources told the paper, “sparks flew” in an escalating shouting match between Netanyahu and Shapiro as the stunned congressman [Rep. Mike Rogers -- R., MI] watched.

Dempsey’s statement and the decision to withhold entirely defensive items from Israel certainly buttress the PM’s contention.

But reliance on the US promises of support is a bad idea in any case. Yoram Ettinger provides some historical examples of why:

From 1950 to 1955, the U.S. promised Israel military systems to deter an Arab offensive. Failure to deliver emboldened Arab terrorism, which led to the 1956 Sinai Campaign.

On Feb. 27, 1957, Israel’s Abba Eban and the U.S.’s John Dulles reached an understanding on Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula, including Sharm el-Sheikh, if Israeli passage through the Straits [sic] of Tiran was assured. Jerusalem interpreted the understanding as a U.S. commitment to use force to keep the straits open. However, Washington’s interpretation was that it did not have the right to use force to protect vessels of other flags, which would require congressional action.

Continue reading: 1 2 All Pages

Tweet

print

tell a friend

Tell A Friend

Your Name(required)

Your Email(valid email required)

Your Friend's Name(required)

Your Friend's Email(valid email required)

Optional Comment

cforms contact form by delicious:days

About the Author: Vic Rosenthal created FresnoZionism.org to provide a forum for publishing and discussing issues about Israel and the Mideast conflict, especially where there is a local connection. Rosenthal believes that America’s interests are best served by supporting the democratic state of Israel, the front line in the struggle between Western civilization and radical Islam. The viewpoint is not intended to be liberal or conservative — just pro-Israel.

You might also be interested in:

Assad: I Won’t Quit, the People Say Who Stays and Goes, Not the US

Yet Another Jewish Org Poised to Honor a BDS Enthusiast (video)

Ziontours Takes Off With Round-Trippers

When American Ambassadors Were Still Untouchable

AG Team on Women’s Discrimination Discriminates Against Women

Senior Israeli Security Official: Assad Is in Control of Syria’s Weapons Systems

IDF Soldiers Humiliated by Arab Rioters: We Are Sitting Ducks

We Should Have Heeded the Warning Signs of Islamist Antisemitism

Al-Qaradawi and the New Religious Conflict with Israel

Upping the Ante: 5 Russian Warships Enter the Mediterranean

35 Thousand Haredim Protest Draft, 10 Cops Injured

Tevye in the Promised Land, Chapter Thirty-Nine: Winds of War

The Teachings of Ruth

The Deeper Meanings of Shavuot

First Jordan, Now Egypt’s Turn to Butt-in on Temple Mount

A Message to Ahmadinejad

The ‘Maharat’: Wonderful Achievement, Bad Idea

Real Zionists Use Bing

In Hebrew: ‘Board’

Fatah Condemns Co-Existence

More Natural Gas Found

Syrian Rebel Commander Eats the Heart of his Enemy

US: Iran Still Has Time to Change Course on Nuclear Program

Congress Widens IRS Investigation, Pro-Israel Groups Were Targeted

Rabbi Riskin Permits Women to Read Ruth for Men in Orthodox Shul

one comment so far

You must log in to post a comment.

One Response to “Do we ‘have Israel’s back’?”

Georga Collins says:

September 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Obama is a two faced bastard. Pathetic. So are his military whimps.

Log in to Reply

jimdesantis says:

September 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM

I agree with you as do alot of people here in the US.We are disappointed in this muslim pied piper who is leading alot of Americans astray by his smooth talk and not seeing that his actions are more in tune with destroying the U.S. Although Mitt Romney is not the answer to our problems I fear another four years of obama and his policies will surely cause us to slide to third world status

Log in to Reply