United States-Israeli relations? It's complicated

By Brian E. Muhammad -Contributing Writer- | Last updated: Nov 19, 2013 - 11:58:06 AM

Since its creation in 1948 Israel enjoyed an "unwavering commitment" and "unbreakable bond" with America along side an annual dowry-currently near $5 billion-of U.S. taxpayers' money.

(FinalCall.com) - It’s undeniable the United States and Israel are allies, but with shifting geopolitics, these days the relationship is complicated.

Chinks became visible in the armor of U.S.-Israeli relations with nuclear non-proliferation talks with Iran—Israel’s avowed foe—and the P5+1 group of nations—the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany held in Geneva, Switzerland. Negotiations with the Islamic state America has had no diplomatic relations with since 1979 have the allies at odds.

“Our goal is an Iran that has only a peaceful nuclear program … and there is no capacity to produce a weapon of mass destruction,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

NEWS ANALYSIS

Sec. Kerry and Vice-President Joe Biden have appealed with Capitol Hill to give diplomacy more time and refrain imposing more crippling sanctions on Iran, which is what Israel wants. The Zionist state also wants complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. Israel rejects any concession with Iran.

Reputed to be the third largest nuclear power worldwide, some observers say Israel’s hardnosed position is hypocritical.

“Israel would not allow any atomic energy experts to come in and inspect her nuclear plant in Dimona, Israel; but now, she is the prosecuting attorney for a non-nuclear Iran,” said the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam on part 41 of his weekly “The Time and What Must be Done” broadcast.

Since its creation in 1948 Israel enjoyed an “unwavering commitment” and “unbreakable bond” with America along side an annual dowry—currently near $5 billion—of U.S. taxpayers’ money. And despite its cantankerous attitude and warmongering toward Iran, both Democrats and Republicans tout Israel as “our greatest ally” in the oil-rich Middle East.

John Kerry hosts an Iftar for Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat at the U.S. Department of State. Photo: MGNOnline

“Once we have the historical perspective on what’s happening today then we’re better equipped to change it … but of course we don’t have the critical mass of people who care enough about what their government is doing in their name.”
—Former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

U.S. imperialism, Israeli expansionism

But it’s a partnership fraught with enmity and yet a shared imperial agenda to destabilize and control the region that has two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves. Unlike Israel, however, America is a little more reluctant after expensive incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with a depleted national treasury and war weary American public.

The policy is part of a wider plan from the Pentagon to “take out seven countries in five years,” specifically Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, peace activist and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney told The Final Call.

The plan was first disclosed publically by retired 4-star General Wesley Clark—former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War. But the idea was initiated from Israel.

The accelerated demise of the governments is in fulfillment of a blueprint for Israeli expansionism outlined in the “Oded Yinon Plan,” going back to the 1980s, Ms. McKinney pointed out. The plan remaps the Middle East to accommodate what the document calls “Greater Israel” and advocates destabilization and Balkanization of nations and regions.

“We should not be surprised when we see that there are calls for [a] creation of 3 countries out of the 1 country, Libya … 3 to 5 countries out of the 1 country, Iraq … 3 to 4 countries out of the 1 country, Syria. They have been successful in breaking up Sudan and they are not done yet.”

This is not a policy about Iran, Syria, or Libya in isolation, “this is a regional policy so that Israel will be able to do what it wants to do in the region with impunity,” said Ms. McKinney.

This idea was promoted by American neo-conservatives who crafted “The Project for a New American Century” to facilitate the plan and Zionist influence among the power elite inside America.

Influential groups and aggressive lobbyists like AIPAC—American Israel Public Affairs Committee—tie the hands of the U.S. government and prevent a tougher foreign policy toward Israel.

Critics view Israel as a mischief-maker whose exemption from accountability is a source of upset in the region. For years Minister Farrakhan warned America against doing Israel’s bidding for war and destabilization as did his teacher. In the vital book, The Fall of America, the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad described the heavy cost of such an arrangement.

“America and England deposited their little brother, Israel, on foreign soil, Palestine which is Arab land. They deprived the Arabs of their own land and sent them into exile. This injustice against the Arabs is now costing America the power and authority that she once exercised in the East. This means bloodshed and plenty of it.”

Who is really in charge?

Israel remains the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the form of cash and military hardware which is another complication. Washington pays the bill while Tel Aviv dictates policy and direction in the region and constantly threatens unilateral strikes on Syria and Iran under the guise of protecting Israel.

On Nov. 1, U.S. media reported that the Israeli military bombed Syria’s port city, Latakia, supposedly to preempt a shipment of Russian weapons intended for Hezbollah, the Lebanese rights group and Syrian ally. Short of admitting culpability in the attack, Israel called the U.S. media leak “scandalous,” and accused the Obama administration of jeopardizing Israeli national security.

Israel has been accused of a series of bombings of Syria since January but has neither confirmed nor denied the strikes and acts have met with silence from America.

“They (Israel) let it be known that they can strike at will,” said analyst and editor of Pan African News Wire Abayomi Azikiwe.

“If the United States—because of public opinion—doesn’t move fast enough, then it’s clear that the Israelis will act on their own,” added Ms. McKinney.

All indications are American resources will continue to flow to Israel—regardless of any Israeli action.

At the Anti-Defamation League’s centennial conference in New York on Oct. 31—the same day of the Syria air strikes—U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel declared “the Israeli and American defense relationship is stronger than ever, and it will continue to strengthen.”

Defense Secretary Hagel announced plans to deliver six advanced V-22 Osprey helicopter-airplanes to Israel, each one with a price tag of $68 million.

Notwithstanding, the gift of military aid and hardware can be seen as further capitulation to strong Zionist influences in Washington that guarantee the interests of Israel are met, even at a time of economic distress inside America.

Mr. Hagel’s announcement came amid geopolitical sparring by the U.S. and Israeli over Iran, Syria and jumpstarting peace talks about Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

President Barack Obama’s entire first term was marked by a mutual irritation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That aside, in a March 2013 visit to Tel Aviv, President Obama reaffirmed U.S. loyalty to Israel. But the relationship was obviously frosty with Secretary of State Kerry’s Nov. 8 visit to Jerusalem.

When Mr. Kerry discouraged the Netanyahu government from constructing more settlements on occupied Palestinian land, the prime minister did a media blitz flatly rejecting the request. Mr. Azikiwe says the American position against Israel is lip profession, not backed by any concrete measures.

“If they really opposed what Israel was doing, they could cut off assistance, they could refuse to purchase Israeli goods that are exported into the United States; they could downgrade their diplomatic relations … . It’s many things they could do,” Mr. Azikiwe said.

The double standard is deliberate and depends largely on a general lack of awareness among Americans about what their government is doing.

(Brian E. Muhammad can be reached at [email protected].)

The Final Call