The US has consistently sided with their own enemies against the tiny State of Israel. They have done this for monetary reasons and they have done this because of the ingrained anti-Semitism of the US Leadership.
US Israeli relations are worse today than ever before. As always, Israel enjoys huge support from the American people but must confront a bi-partisan political class that is pro-Arabist, pro-Islamic and rabidly anti-Israel. To be fair, O’Bama & Co. are not the first American “leaders” to plan war against Israel in support of murderous Islamic regimes, certainly every U.S. administration since Truman lusted after the opportunity to finish off the Jewish State.
Desert Fantasy Or Dark Reality? Kuwaiti Paper Says Obama Threatened To Fire On Israeli Jets Attacking Iran
By Ilan Shavit
Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida reported Saturday that President Barack Obama blocked an Israeli air force attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014, Ma’an reported.
Al-Jarida quoted “well-placed” sources that said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had decided to carry out air strikes against Iran’s nuclear program after consultations with minister of defense Moshe Ya’alon, foreign minister Avigdor Liberman and the IDF brass.
The decision came, according to al-Jarida, in response to U.S. and Iran secret talks—behind Israel’s back—over Iran’s nuclear program.
According to the report, Netanyahu et al agreed after four nights of deliberations (not 1,000 nights, mind you) to assign IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz the preparation of an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The same sources said Gantz prepared the plan, for which Israeli fighter jets trained over several weeks, including test flights in Iran’s airspace, after breaking through its radar.
However, goes the Al-Jarida report, a certain Israeli minister “who has good ties with the U.S. administration,” revealed Netanyahu’s plans to Secretary of State John Kerry, and, as a result, Obama threatened to shoot down those pesky Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.
As a result, Netanyahu had to abort the operation and since then relations between Israel and the United States have been declining, concludes the report.
The rest is history, however, threats to attack Israel on behalf of Arab/Muslim regimes are nothing new:
For some time, the United States had had an emergency plan to attack Israel, a plan updated just prior to the 1967 war, aimed at preventing Israel from expanding westward, into Sinai, or eastward, into the West Bank.
General Alexander Haig revealed on several occasions, the Reagan cabinet’s desire to “finish Israel” in defence of Sadaam Hussein (See the short video clips below)
What about President Ronald Reagan?
On November 14, 1981, the UN adopted a resolution condemning Israel for destroying a nuclear installation in Iraq. Israel and the US were the only two countries to vote against.
That may look like US support for Israel. However, just a few days later the US voted for a resolution condemning Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. The US then also reversed itself on the prior resolution concerning the attack on Iraq, launching a frontal diplomatic attack on Israel. The outgoing Secretary General of the UN, the Austrian Nazi Kurt Waldheim, exulted publicly over this turn of events, and added that, by the way, the West Bank and Gaza Arabs should be given their own state.
US president Ronald Reagan’s attacks on Israel were so sharp that many prominent members of the American Jewish community interpreted this as antisemitism, so Reagan met
“with 32 Jewish supporters… [and then]… with the presidents of 34 Jewish organizations”
Reagan was quoted as giving them the following non-sequitor: that
“his administration ‘will not condone anti-Semitism and will attack it wherever it surfaces.'”
But nobody was asking Reagan to attack antisemitism wherever it surfaced; the complaint was that antisemitism had surfaced in the office of the president!
“…The White House adviser…said Reagan assured his Jewish supporters that ‘the only path to peace we’re following is the Camp David process,’ and not either peace initiatives proposed by Saudi Arabia or Europeans.
Reagan had raised some Jewish concerns by praising what he called implicit recognition of Israel in the plan advanced by Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi plan calls for establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and peace between countries in the region. The plan never mentions Israel.
The Europeans have questioned whether any settlement can be reached without active PLO participation.”
So Reagan, first, endorsed a Saudi ‘peace’ plan that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state “with its capital in East Jerusalem,” and which didn’t recognize Israel’s actual existence, let alone recognize its right to exist.
Then, Reagan said that no, the Saudi plan would not be followed, and neither would he pay any attention to the Europeans, who were calling for a PLO state. Instead, the “Camp David process” would be his policy.
But the “Camp David process” was Jimmy Carter’s policy, and it called for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, the creation of a self-governing Palestinian Arab authority, and, after three years, “negotiations will take place to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza. Since Carter had pushed very hard for including the PLO in the Geneva ‘peace’ conference, it is obvious that this strategy, which looks and sounds exactly like what the Oslo process later became, was meant to create a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.
Adding insult to injury, Reagan decided to sell arms to Saudi Arabia (in addition to the secret buildup that nobody knew about – see 1979 section).
But Reagan had some cover because, only a month earlier, American businessman Edgar Bronfman Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress, had written an editorial in the New York Times in which he:
1) argued for an American role in a Middle East peace process;
2) spoke about “genuine Palestinian needs”;
3) presented the Arabs as genuinely wanting peace; and
4) advised the Israeli prime minister to accept the Arabs’ preconditions and to find “an acceptable solution for the Palestinians.” “Mr. Begin…,” Bronfman explained, “must be prepared to go further than endorsing the idea of Palestinian autonomy”.
More than autonomy: in other words, a Palestinian state! Bronfman was certainly not doing Israel any favors. This must be kept in mind, because, as we will see by the sequel, Bronfman is quite prominent in the American halls of power. This is true as a general rule: only Jews who go out of their way to attack Israel (openly or not so openly) have any influence in Washington.
Now why might that be?
The US rushed to protect the PLO in southern Lebanon from the Israelis.
Not content with the above, in September 1982, Edgar Bronfman, from his perch as President of the World Jewish Congress, publicly endorsed Ronald Reagan’s plan for Middle East peace. Reagan was using Bronfman as a ‘Jewish diplomat’ to speak for Israel, and American newspapers dutifully carried the headline “Jewish leader OKs Reagan peace plan.”
But who cares what Bronfman said? He was not a spokesman for the Israeli government. As a matter of fact,
“the [Likud] Israeli government [led by Menachem Begin]…unanimously and totally rejected the American initiative.”
And what was Bronfman endorsing?
“The Camp David peace accords call for an interim, five-year period of autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza during which the final status of the territories is to be negotiated.”
Autonomy leading to final status was code for a peace process leading to a Palestinian state. We have already seen that the US was quite keen to have Yasser Arafat and the PLO terrorists run such a state (see 1977 section). Thus, Reagan’s plan to create a Palestinian state, which Bronfman endorsed, was another American attack on Israel.
Even as US President Ronald Reagan was pressing for a Palestinian state run by the PLO, these terrorists were attacking Israeli civilians from their bases in Lebanon. Above we noted that in 1970 Jordan’s King Hussein had militarily expelled the PLO terrorists from his country.
“Thereafter the PLO shifted its bases to Lebanon and continued its attacks on Israel. The PLO’s relations with the Lebanese were tumultuous, and the organization soon became embroiled in Lebanon’s sectarian disputes and contributed to that country’s eventual slide into civil war.”
This was a repeat of the problems the PLO had earlier caused in Jordan
Because the PLO was murdering Israeli civilians, Israel invaded Lebanon, and launched a
“campaign that Israel said would wipe out the PLO as a political and military force and open the way for true peace in the Middle East.”
The Israelis very nearly did just that. They failed, however. But not for lack of trying. Rather, what happened is that as Israeli troops got ready to deliver a knockout blow to the PLO, the US intervened to save them. The Washington Post noted the contrast between the PLO’s earlier exit from Jordan, and from Lebanon:
“From Amman [Jordan], the PLO troops left unheralded, in ridicule. From Beirut [Lebanon], they left in a compromise negotiated by the United States, waving their Kalashnikov rifles. Arafat left not in the middle of the night but with an emotional dockside sendoff from the Lebanese prime minister, a French Navy escort and U.S. air cover.”
But why did the US do this? Because the PLO is the US’s pet, and the US meant to use it again as an attack dog (as we shall see). If any further evidence for this ‘master-pet’ relationship were needed, consider that, in Lebanon, the US had been using the PLO as its *guard* dog:
“The Lebanese occupation by Israel caused the Palestinians to have to leave Lebanon eventually…They had been the protectors for the American diplomatic community in Beirut…There was liaison with the PLO, and the Americans were depending on them for their security.” — Vincent Cannistraro, senior intelligence official.
It’s a love affair!
A bit later, a rival Lebanese faction assassinated Bashir Gemayel, the leader of the Lebanese phalangists. Two days after that, in the resulting chaos, a massacre was committed in Sabra and Shatila, blamed on these now-headless phalangists. Despite the fact that nobody was blaming Israeli soldiers, Ronald Reagan (who was then using the Contra terrorists to kill innocent civilians in Nicaragua) launched a ferocious diplomatic attack against Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and his Likud government, claiming Israel was responsible for this. Edgar Bronfman Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress, again provided cover for Reagan by supporting this attack wholeheartedly.
Before closing this section, it is important to note that despite the US rescue of the PLO, Arafat’s eviction from Beirut was a severe blow that essentially defeated the organization. By 1983, the Christian Science Monitor was writing as follows:
“The Palestine Liberation Organization continues, meanwhile, a loss of regional influence that began with Israel’s summer 1982 invasion of Lebanon. As part of the initial cease-fire, Mr. Arafat and the majority of Palestinian guerrillas abandoned their base in Beirut. Since then, a hard-line faction has challenged Arafat’s PLO leadership. Now Arafat’s back is literally against the sea, and his departure from [the northern Lebanese city of] Tripoli seems only a matter of time.”
Sure enough, two months later, the New York Times reported that:
“Mr. Arafat, who is believed to be in Tunis, is scheduled to meet Monday with Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Shafik al-Wazzan, to discuss his organization’s terms for withdrawing the rest of its guerrilla forces from [Tripoli,] Lebanon.”
The US did what it could to make sure that the remaining PLO troops would get out of Lebanon safely:
“White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the Reagan administration wished for the ‘unhampered’ withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization troops loyal to Arafat.”
And the Reagan administration became quite strident about this, in fact.
“The United States said today that it had told Israel that it ‘hopes and expects’ the Shamir Government will halt its military actions around Tripoli and allow Yasir Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization fighters to be evacuated from the city.
…officials said privately that Washington was losing patience with the Israeli tactics that have delayed Mr. Arafat’s withdrawal.”
At the time, as the same New York Times article explains, President Ronald Reagan’s point man on the Middle East was one Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense in George Bush Jr.’s administration.
“Today, in what State Department officials said was an effort to demonstrate to the Arabs the American desire for good relations with them as well as the Israelis, Donald Rumsfeld, the special Middle East envoy, arrived in Baghdad for talks with Iraqi leaders.
Mr. Rumsfeld is the highest ranking American to visit Iraq since the Reagan Administration took office in 1980.”
What has been reviewed for the years 1982-83 does not suggest in the least that the Reagan administration really intended to have good relations with the Israelis. To confirm that, it suffices to read on and find out what happened in 1985.
From its new base in Tunis, the defeated PLO would find it very difficult to attack Israel, which is why it resorted to such high jinks as taking hostage the Italian ship Achille Lauro in 1985 (see below). The US would therefore make sure to revive the PLO, and eventually bring it to power in the West Bank, where it could once again easily kill innocent Israeli civilians.