So who is better for Israel? Trump or Clinton?
The truth is that whoever is elected can be good or bad for Israel. It all depends on Israel. For example: Ronald Reagan, who opposed Israel bombing the nuclear reactor in Iraq – was he good for Israel? Probably. Why? Because Menachem Begin bombed the reactor despite America’s disapproval. Begin based the U.S.-Israel relationship on partnership more than on dependence and Reagan was ultimately considered good for Israel.
Is Barack Obama, who opposed Israel’s bombing of the Iranian nuclear installations, good for Israel? It doesn’t look that way. Why not? Because Binyamin Netanyahu surrendered to American pressure, did not bomb Iran, and based the U.S.-Israel relationship on dependence.
The U.S. reneged on its support for the Partition Plan, pressured Ben-Gurion not to declare Israel a state, and placed an embargo on weapons shipments to the Middle East (which would have been helpful mainly to the Jews). From then until the Six-Day War, American “aid” to Israel was negligible. So, was Truman good for Israel or bad for Israel? The answer is that he was good because Ben-Gurion ignored his opposition – and declared Israel a state nonetheless.
In 1956, the U.S. forced Israel to retreat from Sinai, which had been captured by the IDF in response to the terror attacks perpetrated against Israel under Egyptian auspices. The U.S. gave Israel its guarantee that if Egypt would ever block the strategic Straits of Tiran, the U.S. Navy would intervene. So was Eisenhower good for Israel or bad for Israel? The answer is that he was bad for Israel because Israel retreated.
When Egypt’s Naaser blockaded the Straits of Tiran prior to the Six-Day War, Levi Eshkol called Lyndon Johnson and reminded him of America’s commitment to come to Israel’s aid. “I can’t find my copy,” the U.S. president responded. So was Johnson good or bad for Israel? He was good because Israel went to war and re-conquered the entire Sinai. It also “mistakenly” bombed the U.S. spy ship Liberty, which was eavesdropping on Israel’s military communications. If Johnson had fulfilled the U.S. commitment, Israel would have remained an inconsequential banana republic – the complete opposite of the status it merited when it was forced to defend itself.
Israel fought the Six-Day War with French Mirage jets. When did all of that change? When Israel destroyed all of its enemies and conquered the Sinai, the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, and all Israeli territory west of the Jordan River. Then Israel metamorphosed from a burden to a strategic partner and American weapons and military and civilian aid began to flow.
So the question is not which candidate will be good for Israel, but which candidate will be good for the U.S. and the entire free world. And the answer to that question is whoever restores the original American message of liberty to the U.S. As for Israel? Any president who meets an Israeli leadership that is good for Israel will also be good for Israel.
