Point 1: The Chomskyites will eventually have to concede that the tail wags the dog - i.e. Israel has more influence over the US than vice versa.
Point 2: The retarded philosemites who desperately try to pin Israel's intransigence on Netanyahu can't explain why this exact scenario played out in 1982 under Menachem Begin. They can only hope you are ignorant of history.
From Ronald Reagan's autobiography, An American Life:
"On August 4, two days after I'd met with Israeli Foreign Minister, Yitzhak Shamir in the Oval Office and appealed to him in the strongest words I could think of for Israel to use restraint, I was awakened at 6:30am by my national security advisor. He said that the Israelis had just moved into new positions within West Beirut and were shelling the city with a savage ferocity that was killing more and more civilians. Outraged, Phil Habib telephoned me from Beirut and said that the shelling was so intense and so unrelenting that he was unable to get to meetings he had scheduled to negotiate a settlement to the dispute. I decided to appeal personally to Menachem Begin to stop the fighting and abide by the ceasefire so that Habib could complete his work. I suggested to Begin that if he didn't, he could expect a drastic change in Israel's relationship with the United States. 'This disproportionate bombing of West Beirut,' my message stated, was exacting 'unacceptable human costs and making negotiations impossible.' If it continued, I said, it would be impossible for me to defend the proposition that Israel used American-made weapons for defensive purposes only...Each time I communicated with them, however, I emphasized my personal committment and that of the United States to the support of Israel. I supported its right to defend itself against attack, but appealed for Israel not to go on the offensive unless it was the victim of a provocation of such magnitude that the world would easily understand its right to retaliate. Israel's response was, in effect: Mind your own business. It is up to Israel alone to decide what it must do to ensure its survival."
It is important to understand that Reagan is candidly admitting that Israel was using American-made weapons for offensive purposes, which is a violation of the Foreign Assistance Act, Arms Export Control Act, Leahy Laws, etc. In fact, Reagan admitted Israel was in violation in his autobiography:
"Technically, Israel had violated an agreement with us not to use US-made weapons for offensive purposes, and some cabinet members wanted me to lean hard on Israel because it had broken this pledge. We sent a note to the Israeli government criticizing the raid, and delayed shipment of several additional military aircraft as a show of our displeasure."
Point 3: It should now be clear why Israel favors moving away from military aid to a "partnership." Israel wants to remove what they call the "golden handcuffs" so they can cleanse all of their neighbors without the US using its military aid as a carrot to exert any influence over it. However, abandoning aid in favor of a partnership creates a dependency on Israel for US national security. This will further tie the US's hands in restraining Israel so as to avoid any disruptions to its own defense ecosystem.
pixelskylines
yousharknotpass
izzy806
janainaart
romaincrisis
origamiaround
discoholicmusic
blakekathryn
stormborns
