The War of Independence, Sinai War, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, First Lebanon War, First Intifada, Second Intifada, Second Lebanon War, Gaza War: this is only a partial list of the wars and conflicts that have been afflicting the Israelis for the past six decades. This doesn’t include close to two hundred suicide bombings with close to one thousand killed and tens of thousands wounded. This excludes thousands of missile, rocket and shooting attacks that have killed many, while causing physical and psychological damage to hundreds of thousands. This leaves out the constant threat of Iran that looms on its citizens every day, the fear of yet another war or the fright those mothers and children live with, in fear of another murderous suicide attack. It is perhaps one of the longest conflicts in history; one that has already involved the entire world and one that has no light at the end of the tunnel – no solution in sight.
Ever since Ronald Reagan pursued democracy and made Israel America’s best friend, the American Presidents have largely tried to distinguish themselves as Israel’s friend in the White House. He drew the line in the sand after some US Presidents put intense pressure on Israel to give up its right of self-defense with some refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist (to some extent). Indeed, Israel has literally become a prerequisite for any President prior to taking office. President Obama visited Israel when he was the Democratic candidate as did McCain, and it has now become an unofficial primary state for the GOP candidates. Yet, peace is still farfetched as everyone scrambles to find a solution to the conflict. It has become the duty for every president to present a peace plan to end this ongoing fiasco once and for all.
President Carter perhaps foresaw Israel’s disintegration as the solution to the Mideast crisis. Following his mishap of replacing an American ally in Iran with an Islamic Radical regime, he felt that the region can use more of his “cure” to eliminate the “apartheid regime.” President Clinton didn’t seem to have a solution. He pushed for the Oslo Accords, an agreement that didn’t outline any milestone pact or solution for the conflict other than demanding Israeli concessions. President Bush, most particularly Condoleezza Rice, decided on a “Two State” solution – where two people would live side-by-side in peace and harmony. This resolution, often criticized by neoconservatives – even amongst his cabinet, never materialized as it didn’t make any sense. Finally, President Obama decided that he would shower Israel with some “tough love” – sometimes seen as outright hatred – to resolve this issue.
The United Nations forever had a similar way to Carter’s way of dealing with this problem: the destruction of Israel. As many liberals believe, Israel is evermore the obstacle. George Soros, Richard Goldstone and Mohamed Ahmadinejad have one thing in common – their hatred to the lone Jewish state. The UN Security Council has one solution ever since – condemn Israel. Whether it was a war Israel was waging against Hezbollah, rocket launchers in Gaza or a flotilla laden with arms from Turkey, Israel was rebuked for their response. However, Israel knew that it can rely on the United States’ veto power. It knew that America was protecting her from its enemies, and even with Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office it was relieved to know that it was out of harm’s way.
All that changed this time. Israel, for the first time in sixty years, feared a diplomatic embarrassment and humiliation with yet another resolution to be passed in the United Nation delegitimizing its “settlements” with the approval of the Obama administration. Israel has lost its best friend in the White House and felt once more like a sheep surrounded by seventy hungry wolves. Fortunately, Obama ultimately knew that he needed to stand by Israel. After criticism was aimed at him from the way he handled the Egyptian uprising and his overall treatment to Israel, Obama knew that he must support Israel to increase his chances for re-election. The US “regrettably“ had to veto the resolution only after Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, decried Israel’s cities and towns as illegitimate. It was a last minute reversal but a wake-up call to Israel at the same time: they have no friend in Washington.
Mitt Romney, a possible GOP presidential contender, immediately stood by Israel and criticized the administrations act against Israel. He claimed that Israel’s concessions of the past have been met by suicide attacks and rockets. “Isolated more than ever in the region, Israel must now contend with the fact that its principal backer in the world, the United States, is seeking to ingratiate itself with Arab opinion at its expense,” he exclaimed. This comes after Mike Huckabee, another possible contender for the presidency, reaffirmed his support for Israel in a recent interview. “It goes back to Isaac and Ishmael, and it’s not going to be changed by a couple of presidents or prime ministers,” he rightfully explained.
A strong Israel means a strong America. We need a beacon of light in the Middle East shining upon the other nations in the region to preserve our ideals. A democracy in the Middle East isn’t just another democracy; it is an oasis in the middle of a desert. It gives us the source of support and a base to fight those that dream evil against us. We must not just veto resolutions condemning our friends and allies – we must decry them. We must show them solidarity and be their backbone when others try to destroy them. We must learn a lesson from the past and learn that replacing an ally with an Islamic foe – anywhere – has catastrophic results. We messed up on Iran and most recently in Egypt; let us at least have a government in Israel on our side. We need a president that wants a stronger America; one that doesn’t alienate our friends and befriend our enemies. Obama should be rebuked for reversing US policy to make us weaker. Perhaps, he ought not just to read books on Ronald Reagan – but to take a lesson.
Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and featured columnist. His opinions have been featured in numerous publications. He can be reached at [email protected]
NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.
Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
It’s Mahmoud not Mohamed Ahmadinejad (y’S)
adi: What’s the difference?
Simply unbelievable!
how true is the saying of Chazal: Yisruel k’shehen yordin. . . . .”
Either way what Obama should do you will slam him;
if he does something against, its wrong,
if he does anything in Israel’s favor, its not enough.
WHAT DOES HE OWE ISRAEL IN FIRST PLACE? ? ?
since when does a veto against every other member voting for it not count as supporting Israel?
israel needs to be left alone, not in the limelight. Bush did that and gave israel 2 wars. Obama simply said in 2008 that israel has a right to defend itself and that he would do everything to protect his daughters…and bingo there is relative quiet.
If you are interested in an article having impact having mistakes in it takes away from that 🙂
“…a flotilla laden with arms from Turkey” also isn’t accurate – it was a flotilla laden with jihad seeking Israel-haters sent on a PR mission by Turkey to delegitimise the enemy under the coverage of ‘humanitarians’
What I don’t understand though is why when Israel has such a strong case to represent something like 99% of the time only the other side is heard – it’s as if they don’t even bother to justify themselves any more… I guess that’s min hashamayim too!
“The War of Independence, Sinai War, Six-Day War”
The US was at best neutral in the first and third, and was actively siding with Israel’s enemies during the Sinai (Suez) War.
“some refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist (to some extent). ”
Every President since Truman has recognized Israel’s right to exist, although as I mentioned Eisenhower actively sided against Israel in the Suez War. He also entered into a multilateral defense agreement with a country that was in a state of hot war with Israel (CENTO, Iraq, 1955).
“he felt that the region can use more of his “cure” to eliminate the “apartheid regime.””
This is absolutely misleading; Carter never used such language while President.
“President Clinton didn’t seem to have a solution. He pushed for the Oslo Accords, an agreement that didn’t outline any milestone pact or solution for the conflict other than demanding Israeli concessions”
Not true. The Oslo Accords happened without any participation from Clinton, whose administration was actually surprised when they discovered what was going on. And it did indeed outline a solution for the conflict that involved huge concessions from the Palestinian side: Recognition of Israel.
“The US “regrettably“ had to veto the resolution only after Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, decried Israel’s cities and towns as illegitimate. ”
This one actually goes beyond the realm of misleading into an actual falsehood. It is not “Israel’s cities and towns” that are illegitimate, it is the settlements in the occupied territories — which are NOT part of Medinat Yisrael! And the US has maintained that position for 43 years under nine Presidents (four Democrats, five Republicans).
“We need a beacon of light in the Middle East shining upon the other nations in the region to preserve our ideals. A democracy in the Middle East isn’t just another democracy; it is an oasis in the middle of a desert. ”
I agree. And unfortunately the occupation of the West Bank is anything but a beacon. Israel continues to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention by building settlements. That is no ideal!
‘We messed up on Iran and most recently in Egypt’
Actually the situation in Egypt produced the greatest consensus in foreign policy America has seen since the end of the cold war. Everyone from very liberal Democrats to very conservative Republicans agreed that Mubarak had to go. The US Senate passed a resolution to this effect without a single dissenting vote. Only the nutty Left and the crazy Right disagreed with this consensus.
Unfortunately, Israel and its supporters shot themselves in the foot by not realizing that this consensus existed. It further shot itself in the foot by not realizing precisely what Mr. Hirsch points out: That US interests are served by support for democracy, not brutal dictators. Mubarak wasn’t the worst dictator in the world, but he was close to the top in terms of his corruption, suppression of dissent, and massive numbers of political prisoners. US interests are not served by continuing to be blamed by the Egyptian people for sticking them with Mubarak. (That’s actually unfair, as the US didn’t create the Mubarak regime, but perceptions are often more important than facts.)
A portion of the article above reads as follows:
“President Carter perhaps foresaw Israel’s disintegration as the solution to the Mideast crisis. Following his mishap of replacing an American ally in Iran with an Islamic Radical regime, he felt that the region can use more of his “cure” to eliminate the “apartheid regime.” President Clinton didn’t seem to have a solution. He pushed for the Oslo Accords, an agreement that didn’t outline any milestone pact or solution for the conflict other than demanding Israeli concessions. President Bush, most particularly Condoleezza Rice, decided on a “Two State” solution – where two people would live side-by-side in peace and harmony. This resolution, often criticized by neoconservatives – even amongst his cabinet, never materialized as it didn’t make any sense. Finally, President Obama decided that he would shower Israel with some “tough love” – sometimes seen as outright hatred – to resolve this issue.
“The United Nations forever had a similar way to Carter’s way of dealing with this problem: the destruction of Israel.”
This is so wrong in so many ways, but I will try to address some of them. For starters, what is “this problem” that the writer mentions in the second paragraph quoted above? He does not say, but from the overall tone of his article, he does not (nor do I) think “the problem” is Israel, but he does not make clear what the “the problem” is. He is also, stunningly, factually wrong when he says the UN has “forever” sought to destroy Israel. The State of Israel came into existence because of a UN resolution adopted in 1947. The UN could, presumably, repeal that resolution any time it wants to, and indeed, many members would vote for such a resolution at the drop of a hat (black or otherwise). That has not happened in over 60 years, in part because of US opposition to such an idea, opposition which has continued unabated for over 60 years, through many US administrations of both US political parties.
The writer alleges that President Carter participated in the replacement of the Shah of Iran, a US ally, with the radical Islamic regime that emerged from the ashes of the Iranian revolution of 1979. There are 2 fundamental problems with this allegation: first, that President Carter and the US were participants in the Iranian uprising of 1979, and second, that the US could even have a material effect on those events of 1979. Both are plain false. Moreover, Mr. Carter did not characterize Israeli society as “apartheid” until he entered his dotage in the current century.
More significantly, the writer overlooks the efforts of President Carter in bringing about the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that is now the focus of concern for me, the writer, and other supporters of Israel. Egypt recognized Israel’s right to exist, and there has been peace on Israel’s western flank ever since the Carter administration. Clearly, President Carter played an essential role in the survival of the State of Israel for the last 30 years.
Perhaps the writer’s biggest mistake is imagining that the US has a “vote,” or significant authority or power, over the events in Egypt and throughout the Arab world of the last several months. I commend to the writer a book by Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael B. Orens, titled “Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to Present.” One of Mr. Orens’s themes is that the US, including, I suppose, the writer, does not adequately understand the Middle East and has only limited influence over events there. President Obama has demonstrated his appreciation of this limitation and in fact has, so far at least, guided the US through the current minefield of Middle East events without any mishaps. I hope, and suspect, that President Obama will continue to do so, so long as he does not call upon political analysts as uninformed as the writer of this op-ed article.
…”We must learn a lesson from the past and learn that replacing an ally with an Islamic foe – anywhere – has catastrophic results.”…
If there is a lesson we need to learn from the past, it is this :
“ein lanu al mi lehisha’en – ela al avinu shebashayim” – we have NOONE to rely on – not our IDF, not our diplomacy – ONLY Hashem. This is REALITY.
We need to focus on Torah and avodas hashem – that is our only reliable and foolproof weapon.