Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
TAIL ATTEMPTS TO WAG DOG.
Now this is fascinating:
This puts to test the notion that Israel is a major strategic asset for the United States, rather than a strategic liability. I have never been particularly convinced by the "Israel as asset" notion; it seems to me that underwriting the Israeli economy and Israeli military capability has had limited strategic payoff for the United States. An irritated Israel could genuinely threaten the U.S. in the short term by selling advanced military equipment to China or Russia, or by sharing the fruits of U.S.-Israeli intelligence cooperation with either. Both, of course, have already happened; the U.S. had to apply severe pressure on Israel to halt sales of military equipment to China, and Israeli intelligence cooperation with the Soviets in the 1980s resulted in the severe degradation of US capabilities in the USSR.In a sign of growing concern in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government over US President Barack Obama's Middle East policies, Minister-without-Portfolio Yossi Peled proposed Israeli sanctions on the US in a letter to cabinet ministers on Sunday...
In the interim, the minister suggests reconsidering military and civilian purchases from the US, selling sensitive equipment that the Washington opposes distributing internationally, and allowing other countries that compete with the US to get involved with the peace process and be given a foothold for their military forces and intelligence agencies. Peled said that shifting military acquisition to America's competition would make Israel less dependent on the US. For instance, he suggested buying planes from the France-based Airbus firm instead of the American Boeing.
The key thing to remember, however, is that Israel only has such leverage over the United States because of extraordinary U.S. military and intelligence generosity; if the U.S. were to cut the cord, Israel would have virtually nothing to offer the Russians or the Chinese. In terms of regional military capability, the U.S. obviously did not need Israeli assistance to undertake the simultaneous conquest and extended occupation of two Middle Eastern countries. Israeli intelligence on the capability of Soviet weapon systems following the 1967 and 1973 wars did prove useful to the United States, but the technical characteristics of Syrian tanks and surface-to-air missiles are no longer overriding U.S. security concerns. The Syrian and Iranian nuclear programs are a bit more of an issue for the United States, and Israeli intel has done good work especially with the former; given that the Russians and the Chinese don't particularly care about the issue, however, I'm not convinced that it grants the Israelis much leverage. Israeli intelligence is focused primarily on states and organizations that threaten Israel, not on those that threaten the United States.
This is a short way of saying that Israel needs the U.S. MUCH more than the U.S. needs Israel. The Israelis can buy equipment from France, China, Russia and whomever else, but they are extremely unlikely to find a patron willing to undertake the degree of generosity that the United States has exhibited.
--Robert Farley
COMMENTS (19)
Oh man.... this is a chance to stop selling them fancy weapons. That would be great.
Posted by: MNPundit | June 10, 2009 12:32 PM
I'd like more information on Soviet-Israeli intelligence cooperation in the eighties. Is there anyolace you can refer me to to learn more?
Posted by: Horaceco | June 10, 2009 12:57 PM
Bring it on!
Oh, to be able to cut that tie.
A huge waste of money.
The settlements have been a betrayal to their loyal ally, have cost American lives, and endanger America cities.
Good bye and good riddance.
Posted by: wrb | June 10, 2009 1:01 PM
the us needs to butt out of this problem. we should treat israel (and egypt and saudia arabia) just like any brazil, south africa, indonesia or any other country with whom we have friendly relations. stop giving them billions of dollars in aid. stop selling them weapons. once we do that if they want someone like senator mitchell to help solve the israeli palestinian dispute (as he did in northern ireland) that is fine. otherwise they are on their own
Posted by: sr | June 10, 2009 1:02 PM
We can also curtail the $4 billion in annual aid we provide to them if they want to play games. The only solution is a two state solution end of story...
Posted by: lib4 | June 10, 2009 1:16 PM
w/o the U.S., Israel becomes a rogue state w/ nuclear weapons.
Posted by: kbs | June 10, 2009 1:21 PM
Go ahead. Make my day.
Posted by: tompain | June 10, 2009 1:39 PM
Reminds me of when George Costanza asked his (much richer) fiance to sign a pre-nup. She laughs in his face: "Sure, give it me. I'll sign it!"
Posted by: Cosmo DiVola | June 10, 2009 1:48 PM
This needs to go down in the intergalactic annals of chutzpah.
The overweening sense of entitlement from the Israelis is quite simply astouding. Our "alliance" with these people offers the US no strategic benefit whatsoever and innumerable geopolitical and diplomatic liabilities. The only reason we continue to aid this country is the admirable goal of protecting a weak state from sure destruction by hostile neighbors---but the Israelis seem intent on bringing about said destruction by colonizing land that simply does not belong to them. The second the president acts to make them live up to their agreements---and in doing so save themselves from destruction---he is threatened with sanctions and aid to our adversaries. What more is it going to take to make Obama physically bitch slap Bibi?
Maybe we should cut these guys off. I am now as fed with their shit as I am with the Palestinians. When they can defend their own country without American aid and weapons of war, then maybe we should begin to give a fuck what they think. That's change I can believe in.
Posted by: dragnet | June 10, 2009 1:50 PM
I love how a minor Israeli government figure with a big mouth can drive everybody crazy. What is a "Minister-without-Portfolio"? It's typically somebody who the PM doesn't want making decisions but who has sucked up too much to be ignored. But does one wacko speak for the country? When McCain sang "Bomb Iran," was it not clear to the outside world that at least half the country thought he was a complete fool?
We can't ignore Netanyahu's behavior. He's been at the center of every disaster in recent Israeli history. But Peled is a marginal wacko even in Israel and we shouldn't take what he says at face value any more than we should pay attention to Chuck Grassley's twitter account.
Posted by: Mark | June 10, 2009 2:27 PM
"But Peled is a marginal wacko even in Israel and we shouldn't take what he says at face value any more than we should pay attention to Chuck Grassley's twitter account."
Please cut the bullshit. I heard a lot of people say similar things about Avigdor Lieberman a few years ago---and now he's the freaking foreign minister of Israel.
Posted by: dragnet | June 10, 2009 2:34 PM
You have got to be F&*(**() kidding me. Let them impose sanctions. Let's cut of all aid-every single dollar. Let them sit in their own mess. This is truly obscene.
Posted by: Scoobydood | June 10, 2009 2:56 PM
Brilliant... there's nothing the average American admires more than a dog that bites the hand that feeds it.
I think to a large degree, Israel's disproportionate influence in Congress has always been dependent on their keeping it under the radar. Their previously unconditional support from Americans was on the decline before their war in Lebanon, and the Gaza disaster only accelerated it. Now this, are they really that unaware of the effect public opinion has on our politicians? Buying politicians is easy, the problem is they just won't stay bought.
Posted by: KLS | June 10, 2009 3:36 PM
Well if this shows anything it's that:
1. Americans have no idea how the parlimentary ssytem works, and thus are getting outraged just for the sake of outrage
2. Americans have no idea how the "aid" that goes to Israel works. Israel gets cash form the US that it then must spend on US weapons. The US dosen't "sell" weapons to Israel it subsidises the American economy with such deals
3. Americans don't realize just how advanced hoemgorown Israeli weapons systems are or how much the Russians and Chinese have been itching to create a relationship with Israel
4. The US would have a though time finding an Ally in the Middle East outside of Israel.
Posted by: Bark | June 10, 2009 4:00 PM
Hey Bark, I think the US would have a much easier time finding an ally in the middle east if they were not an ally of Israel. That seems to be the main reason why they don't like us. and as for threats about going to other countries for weapons, who cares. we were paying for them anyway.
Posted by: Keith | June 10, 2009 4:59 PM
@Bark
About point 4, have you ever heard of Kuwait?
Posted by: SomeGuy | June 10, 2009 5:34 PM
But..but..They're your bff.
It's not like they have the US government in their pocket.
Oh wait.
Posted by: Keri | June 10, 2009 6:02 PM
See, the problem here is the assumption that Israel actually needs a patron. It did back when its neighbors had one, sure, but it doesn't anymore. There is currently no combination of neighbors and terrorists that can take down Israel.
So, let's assume that we cut it off. Israel patches a hole that amounts to 6% of their annual budget, and then . . . is completely outside our influence. They suddenly have exactly zero reason to give a damn about what we say about anything. And in the realm of public diplomacy, you get a huge "fuck America" reaction in the Israeli public.
kbs said, "w/o the U.S., Israel becomes a rogue state w/ nuclear weapons." That's precisely the problem. Israel suddenly would lose a major constraint on weapons tech-sharing with China and Russia, on nuclear R&D (including joint R&D with other countries), on abusing Palestinians even more, on officially annexing territory, on building settlements, etc. The logic of both realpolitik and of angry-at-America Israeli public opinion would encourage such activities.
That's assuming, of course, the massive influx of money and support to the Republican Party caused by a Democratic government cutting off Israel didn't simply result in the policies being reversed by President Jindal in 2013.
Posted by: Steven | June 10, 2009 6:13 PM
Strong and accurate. Yossi Peled is acting like a dump for a long time now.
Posted by: Amir - Israel | June 11, 2009 4:41 PM