It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Israel as a Strategic Liability?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:31 AM
Israel as a Strategic Liability?

It seems the world powers and populations are becoming ever more polarized concerning Israel.

This article written in June 2010 does a good job of explaining the undying support of the US for Israel and the motivation behind it whilst at the same time attempting to draw a line in the sand for all the times that Israel has acted in a heavy handed manner and still been supported by USA.

Ultimately as General Petraeus has already said, the double standards adopted by the USA towards Israel, or the perception thereof in the wider world is leading towards Israel becoming a Strategic Liability.

I would like to cross reference this to another thread I have just made: Neocons Abandon Turkey

Excerpt 1:

America's ties to Israel are not based primarily on U.S. strategic interests. At the best of times, an Israeli government that pursues the path to peace provides some intelligence, some minor advances in military technology, and a potential source of stabilizing military power that could help Arab states like Jordan. Even then, however, any actual Israeli military intervention in an Arab state could prove as destabilizing as beneficial.

The fact is that the real motives behind America's commitment to Israel are moral and ethical. They are a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, to the entire history of Western anti-Semitism, and to the United States' failure to help German and European Jews during the period before it entered World War II. They are a product of the fact that Israel is a democracy that shares virtually all of the same values as the United States.

Excerpt 2:

At the same time, the depth of America's moral commitment does not justify or excuse actions by an Israeli government that unnecessarily make Israel a strategic liability when it should remain an asset. It does not mean that the United States should extend support to an Israeli government when that government fails to credibly pursue peace with its neighbors. It does not mean that the United States has the slightest interest in supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or that the United States should take a hard-line position on Jerusalem that would effectively make it a Jewish rather than a mixed city.



[edit on 16-6-2010 by Bravo111]


log in