Modern media sinks claws into healthy Israel-US relationship

Comments (3)
  1. Moses Lapin says:

    Informative, opinionated and self awaredly critical. Alan you are our Connery.
    I do think that the bunkerbusters are more than routine aid, especially given President Bush’s refusal to supply them (clearly the Bush Administration was more pro-Israel than the Obama Administration). It can’t have been a jealous revenge plot.
    Given the fact that the entire world relies on American aid — financially (yes, I am looking at your economy China! Not aid in the traditional sense, but…), militarily (US had military operations in 13 countries in the last decade according to Wikipedia), and socially (we provide food, education, health supplies and technology to most of the known world) — how do you feel about Israel’s reliance on America’s non-political aid (moneys and militarily)? (the dollar figures – http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid/foreign_aid.html). Even if the article, Shanker comes off as a warmongering bitch, is clearly biased, the facts are Israel, like the rest of the world, is not independent in the way we would like to think it is.

    Informative database of American foreign aid figures: http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm


  2. Tomer Elias says:

    Maybe you should look at this in a different way, or at least the way this arms deal was perceived on the Israeli side.
    The Obama administration and generally the most recent administrations (Clinton, Bush) have believed that a “strong” Israel is an Israel more willing to make “concessions” for peace. This might explain why this was considered an “under the table” deal, This is also clear with the Iron dome which is seen to want to achieve the same goals. The aim is that “the peace process must go on no matter what”. If Israel can defend itself without getting harmed in the process then all the “rogue” forces trying to prevent the peace process from continuing are unable to do so.
    Another point worth looking at is the fact that Israel, unlike its neighbors, prefers not to reveal its full arsenal of weaponry and might have requested that the deal be “hushed” more then usual in order to not provoke a regional arms race and also to keep Israels enemies guessing what it has and doesn’t have to defend itself with.

  3. Dear Tomer,

    Thank you for your comment. It is definitely true that Israel requested this military transaction to remain confidential, but then again, all military transactions are secretive on some basic level. The media always gets wind of these transfers and reports on them, no matter how inconspicuous the deal may have been intended to be. I was merely pointing out the distasteful word choice of the headline; while the intentions of the author may have been totally benign, it comes off as a kind of international drug deal, which it most definitely isn’t.

    In addition, the article was maintaining that this single act might convince Jewish voters in the US to reelect President Obama, which is a ridiculous assertion in my mind – a single weapons transfer, however special or secretive, is still part of an ongoing partnership between the two nations, and should not be THE major selling point of an administration.

    That said, I welcome any other viewpoints – there are certainly a myriad ways to look at this issue!

    Alan Naroditsky