WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > Military Agreement with Israel

Posted by: Imperialist March 10, 2006 09:31 am

Israel will offer Romania help in fighting terrorism, Romania's defense minister said yesterday after talks with his Israeli counterpart.
The offer was made during a one-day visit by Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. The two ministers also discussed Romania buying F-16 fighter jets from Israel, a decision that would be made by the end of the year, Defense Minister Teodor Atanasiu said.

Atanasiu and Mofaz signed a five-year cooperation agreement between the countries' two armies. No further details of the agreement were available.

http://www.daily-news.ro/article_detail.php?idarticle=23761

Posted by: C-2 March 10, 2006 06:55 pm

Nothing agains you (this time ) imperialist...
But those news are strange.
Taking lessons from Israel ,is like me ,or any other of you guys ,taking lessons from Michael Schumacher.
I mean,what do we need those lessons for?
As far as I know,once in early 70's a group of arabs planned to asasinate Golda Meyr on the way to the tample,and some Jordanian diplomat was killed by another arab .
Not much terror isn't it?
So why spending so much funds?
Why buying second hand F 16"s .
What for?

Posted by: Iamandi March 11, 2006 07:35 am

What for, C2? To hunt those damn terrorists! F-16 is the proper weapon against terrorists, and when are second hand they (the F-16) are better...

Maybe Israel knows something we dont know yet. Maybe the terrorists from the end of '89 "event" are planning to come back...

So, stay close to your radio/tv people!

Or, maybe someone have some percents from this contract, as usually...

Iama

Posted by: C-2 March 11, 2006 09:47 pm

Posted by: boonicootza March 11, 2006 10:12 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Mar 10 2006, 08:55 PM)

I mean,what do we need those lessons for?
As far as I know,once in early 70's a group of arabs planned to asasinate Golda Meyr on the way to the tample,and some Jordanian diplomat was killed by another arab .
Not much terror isn't it?

and what would you say if, god forbid, an attack will happen on romanian soil? As far as I know we're not a primary target but we still are one, after all we are in Iraq, we are in Afghanistan and we're helping US.
I think it's better to be safe than sorry, don't you think?

Posted by: Imperialist March 12, 2006 01:43 am

QUOTE (C-2 @ Mar 10 2006, 06:55 PM)

So why spending so much funds?
Why buying second hand F 16"s .
What for?

Its a matter of alliances. We dont have good relations with Russia, and Israel doesnt like Russia's moves in the Middle East either. We are close allies with the US, while France and Germany are getting closer and closer with Russia. Russia has better relations with Hungary than with us. Unless another government comes and turns our foreign policy 180 degrees, we are bound to stick with US-Israel.

Posted by: C-2 March 12, 2006 08:55 am

Well Israel has a population twicw the size of Bucharest,2/3 of the teritory is desert...
They do very well in securing their embasies and airlines,but do not do well on preventing terorist atacks.An almost imposib.task.
Every time they are attacked by terorists the retaliet by bombing targets is the West Bank,Gaza and Lebanon.
If ther's a need they'll go as far as Osirak or Beirut.
If a terorist atack takes place here in Rom,where will we bomb?
If Israel bombed targets in Tunis ,in the 80's,with the help of their logistics,it's imposible for us to go.
I see no reason for such a colaboration.
Waste of money,for nothing.
Combating terorism neads a very sofisticated secret service.A think that is not seen even at the horizon.

Posted by: boonicootza March 12, 2006 11:23 am

C-2 you are a medic, right? Is it not true that it's cheaper to prevent than to cure?

Is it not good to learn from the people with the most experience? Israel have the most experience regarding terrorist attacks. And for sure they will not teach about retaliating but about preventing and stoping terrorist attacks.

Posted by: C-2 March 12, 2006 01:12 pm

Yes tehy do have alot of experience.
But also have the Spanish(ETA) and what did they did to prevent the train blasts?
NOTHING.
You cannot prevent terorists,you can retaliet,and Romania has no ways for doing that.
And yes I"m a medic,and I surely think prevention is the best way,but I also spent quite a time in Israel ,and I know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: Imperialist March 13, 2006 11:46 am

QUOTE

Olmert said that Israel is part of an international alliance against Iran.

"I spoke about the West's military option, which includes the armies of the United States, NATO, and even the IDF in this context," Ya'alon said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/692360.html

So I guess that makes us part of it too.

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger March 13, 2006 06:01 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Mar 12 2006, 01:12 PM)

Hallo

With regard the train bombings in Spain, the Arab terrorist figured that an anonamous strike on early rush-hour people going to work would be immediately blamed on ETA given them some vital hours to cover their tracks and make a getaway, only for the fact that two rucksack bombs failed to go off and the mobile phones being recovered help id the attackers, along with a audio tape left in a white van near one of the stations.

As with regards the Israelis, you might be buying second-hand planes but you will also be getting some first-rate intelligence help as well, and I dont mean the C I A

Israel is the first to admit it is virtualy impossible to stop a terrorist attack against the civillian population, to many places, to many possibilities where it can be staged, but attacks against I.D.F military targets seem always to end up with the terrorist getting dead.

The whole idea of terrorism is to terrorise the civillian population military personel know what happens in such situations involving, guns, hand-grenades, rocket attacks etc as they are well trained for it.

I witnessed the Israeli forces in action when I was stationed in South Lebanon with UNIFIL,(United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon) they go in hard, and hit back hard.

As for arab civilian casualties 95% are caused by the terrorists hiding amongst their own people. Most Arabs probably dont support the terrorist, but are too afraid to speak out, knowing they will get killed by the terrorists.

Kevin in Deva.

Posted by: Imperialist March 14, 2006 08:54 am

QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ Mar 13 2006, 06:01 PM)

As for arab civilian casualties 95% are caused by the terrorists hiding amongst their own people. Most Arabs probably dont support the terrorist, but are too afraid to speak out, knowing they will get killed by the terrorists.

Kevin in Deva.

Do you have a reliable source for such an accurate percentage?

Posted by: C-2 March 14, 2006 02:11 pm

Actualy I don't think thar Al Qaida,wanted to put the balame on ETA .
People talked about this posibility on the first hour after the blasts,but there were imediate denails by ETA.
Such a terorist act couldn't do any good to the Bascs cause.

Posted by: Imperialist March 18, 2006 10:04 am

QUOTE

The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published yesterday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical," write the authors of the study.

John J. Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago's political science department and Stephen M. Walt from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government do not present new facts

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/695227.html

Posted by: AlexC March 20, 2006 11:34 am

And here is the report:http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
This is a must read.

Posted by: Zayets March 20, 2006 11:58 am

The other part of discussion (2nd hand Falcons) do not have to many supporters.At least the MoD is one of the opponents.There was an article on Adevarul or Gandul. I can't remember but he (MoD) said that RoAF will buy NEW multirole aircrafts. At first 24 and then another 2 squadrons (48 I guess). Of course, I am saying what the reporter said (in fact was an interview) , don't know how reliable the information is.

http://www.gandul.info/2006-03-20/actual/nu_e_bine.

Posted by: Imperialist March 20, 2006 12:55 pm

QUOTE (AlexC @ Mar 20 2006, 11:34 AM)

And here is the report:http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
This is a must read.

Thank you for the link AlexC! Very important paper, written by famous political scientists.

take care

Posted by: Jeff_S March 21, 2006 10:26 pm

I agree, that was a very well-written and interesting article, saying something that needs to be said. I've always liked Mearsheimer's work (and Walt's too).

Posted by: Imperialist March 23, 2006 07:26 am

QUOTE

one congressman labeled the paper "trash" and described its authors as "anti-Semites."

another Harvard professor, Ruth Wisse, called for the Kennedy School to withdraw the paper until the authors remedy their "poor scholarship."

Yet the assessment of Rep. Eliot Engel, a Democrat of New York who is Jewish, was that the paper "really deserves the contempt of the American people," and that it amounts to "the same old anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist drivel."

Mr. Engel said he thought the "dishonest so-called intellectuals" who wrote the paper are "entitled to their stupidity" and was respectful of their right to publish it, but said he also supports "the right of the rest of us to expose them for being the anti-Semites they are."

"I think the first thing to be done is to remove it from the Kennedy School's Web site, until such time as the authors have revised it," Ms. Wisse said. "If it's called a working paper, then clearly it didn't work."

http://www.nysun.com/article/29554

And look how others started to spin their paper:

QUOTE

The authors do pay lip service to defending Israel’s right to exist. But their attacks on Israel fail every basic test of fairness, and lead one to believe they would prefer a world without Israel.

QUOTE

Israel is demonized by the authors; the surrounding dictatorships, who have sent terrorists to our shores and who are killing our soldiers now, are sanctified.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5342

And this is just one example of how some react when the "golden calf" of all debate is disturbed, even by the most polite and academically wary voices.

Posted by: AlexC March 23, 2006 07:34 am

The smear campaign has started it seems.The authors of this report have shown real courage for publishing it.

Posted by: Imperialist March 26, 2006 11:28 pm

There was an armed attack against an ambassador/embassy in the early 90s in Romania. Some of the attackers were shot by the romanian guards or special forces. I dont remember much. Does someone know more about that quite unique incident? When, who, how.

thank you

Posted by: tomcat1974 March 27, 2006 09:02 am

SRI (Brigada antiterorista, BTW this unit was established in 1974 former USLA).. target was Indian ambasador.

Posted by: Imperialist March 27, 2006 10:19 am

I found this with the help of your info:

QUOTE

Shri J.F. Ribeiro, Indian Ambassador in Romania was shot and
injured by suspected terrorists on 20th August, 1991.
The incident
took place in Bucharest at about 1830 hrs. (local time) when the
Ambassador and his wife were out for a walk close to their residence.
One of the assailants, who was travelling in a car, opened fire with a
Kalashnikov assault rifle. The Romanian security personal accompanying
the Ambassador returned the fire following which the assailant fled
throwing away his rifle. Simultaneously, three other assailants
alighted from the the car and opened fire injuring the Ambassador in
his right thigh. The security personnel shot dead one of the
assailants and over-powered two, one of whom also sustained injury.
Mrs Ribeiro was unhurt. The fifth assailant who was in a separate car
also escaped.

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/lsdeb/ls10/ses1/0212099101.htm

QUOTE

Sikh extremists later kidnapped a Romanian diplomat in India, demanding the release of both the two assailants held by the Romanian authorities in the attack on the Indian Ambassador and three Sikh militants held by Indian authorities for other crimes.
Although none of those demands was met, the Romanian diplomat was released seven weeks later

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_91/europe.html

QUOTE

Oct. 21, 1991
The Romanian charge d'affaires in New Delhi, Liviu Radu, 55, left his heavily guarded home one morning last week, climbed into his black Dacia sedan and was promptly seized by four armed men as he drove to his office. Two days later, the Khalistan Liberation Force and three other militant Sikh separatist groups in the Indian state of Punjab jointly claimed responsibility for the kidnapping.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,974111,00.html

take care

Posted by: C-2 March 27, 2006 11:45 am

The Israeli embassy was NEVER attacked in Romanaia.
In early 70's there was a plot of killing Israeli PM Golda Meyr who was in visit in Romania.
The hit mans were Palestinians trained in Romania.
The securitate found out,arested the guys and then sent them back to some arab state.

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger March 27, 2006 12:46 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Mar 14 2006, 08:54 AM)

QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ Mar 13 2006, 06:01 PM)

Do you have a reliable source for such an accurate percentage?

With regards the source, it comes from my own knowledge of the retaliation strikes made by the Israelis in Lebanon and from the International news services.

I served in Lebanon with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Israelis were not respectful of our peacekeeping status, when attempting to strike back at the terrorists, also known militia groups camped very close to UN positions, seeking shelter from return fire from Israeli long range artillery and airstrikes, especialy the PLO around Tyre on the coast.

Terrorists unlike most modern military, hide among the civillian population, so therefore any retalatory attack will have a high civillian casualty rate, the Israelis target the terrorist or militant first, civillian casualties are secondary, whereas the terrorist or militant targets anything Israeli, civil or military. The Israelis are portraied as murder's of poor arab civillians but very little is said about the Israeli civillians who get killed by rocket, mortar and suicide attack launched indiscriminately. Any opions here expressed, are purely my own and I do not seek to condone any civilian deaths by either side.

Kevin in Deva.

Posted by: Imperialist March 27, 2006 01:52 pm

QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ Mar 27 2006, 12:46 PM)

With regards the source, it comes from my own knowledge of the retaliation strikes made by the Israelis in Lebanon and from the International news services.

Any opions here expressed, are purely my own and I do not seek to condone any civilian deaths by either side.

Kevin in Deva.

I respect that, but any opinion needs to be backed by something else, especially if numbers are given for events that cannot be encompassed by someone's limited experience. I could return that opinion and say 95% of civilians killed are wantonly killed by the Israelis, and I couldnt get out of that conundrum by invoking limited on site personal anecdotes.

take care

p.s. http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iopt0605/

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger March 27, 2006 06:02 pm

It would be more interesting to see "Human Rights Watch" looking into the human rights of the people of British, Irish, Spanish, American, Australian, Israeli citizens both military and civil etc who have been attacked by so called "Freedom Fighters and Islamic Militants etc".

Personally I consider "Human Rights Watch" nothing, compared to the United Nations, where are HRW putting people on the ground to interceed with disputes, what conflicts have they helped to settle?? Where have HRW provided humanatarian relief help?? (their history is from 1978 to the present day) Where have HRW people laid their lives on the line to help stop Political, Secterian, Racial and religious persecution?? to my knowledge none have paid the ultimate price with their lives to help save others. The organisation is just a Publicity seeking Club of do-gooders, no funds except voluntary donations from the public.

But no matter what is reported there will always be a biased slant depending on your view being for the official security forces of a Democraticaly elected Government of the people, or a supporter of terrorism.

At the end of the day the people of both sides have to sit down and discuss there differences, while in Lebanon, it was clear from contact with local moslem people, that they did not like what was being done in their name especialy by the "Imported from Iran, and sponsored by the Syrian government" Hizbollah", when they infiltrated their way into the local South Lebanese communities, they soon spread the word that it was not ok to accept medical aid from the U N contingent in South Lebanon, and that they would be provide medical & social help for the people, anybody who did not toe the "Islamic party line" got a warning, and if they continued to fratanise with the UN they simpaly disapeared

The whole point of Terrorism is to rule the people by fear

God Bless the members of the "Blue Helmets" who have died in the Service of Peace.

Kevin in Deva.

Posted by: Imperialist March 27, 2006 06:20 pm

QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ Mar 27 2006, 06:02 PM)

I only asked you what was the source of that 95%, I wasnt for or against anything. If you would've provided a reliable source I would've accepted that info. Instead, I am free to contest its reliability.
The link to that HRW only shows that even if the government is democratically elected the inner workings in (any) military are not democratical and abuses do take place. Abuses that are hard to be brought to light or severely punished by the same "fraternity" whose members committed them.

take care

edit -- and I really dont understand why you compare HRW, an NGO, with the huge international organisation that the UN is.

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger March 27, 2006 06:42 pm

Hallo Imperialist,

Well at the end of the day, I am happy to have been involved in the United Nations Peace-Keeping efforts, we (all nationalities who contributed) freely volunteered to serve with the UN, I remember my friends who died in Lebanon both on my tour and afterwards in the 15 years the Irish were involved there, including the Irish soldiers who were taken prisoner and murdered, (the ringleader of the killers now lives in Detroit, USA selling Ice-cream to kids and has never been called to account for his actions) America, home of the brave, land of the free

And now we have to sit and listen to HRW tell us whats wrong with the world, if a hugh International Organisation like the U N cant wave a magic wand to fix the worlds problems what chance have the whistle-blowing publicity seeking members of the HRW got

As far as I am concerned my contribution to world peace might have been small, and just might have brought a little normality into the lives of the villiages, both Mosleam and Christian in the UNIFIL area and I sleep well at night.

This is as far as my contribution to this topic goes as it will just entail digging a deep hole with no end in sight. As I said earlier, at some stage (hopefuly in the near future) people involved in any conflict will have to sit down and have a discussion, and not be dictated to because of their race, religion or politics.

Kev in Deva.

Posted by: C-2 March 27, 2006 07:16 pm

I sent you a pm...

Posted by: mabadesc March 28, 2006 02:54 am

QUOTE

Indeed you bring up a valid point. Sadly, however, this is just another example of the general trend of self-described humanitarian organizations, who offer help to criminals, terrorists, or aggressors in general without making any mention of the victims these people have made.

Posted by: Imperialist March 28, 2006 07:09 am

QUOTE (mabadesc @ Mar 28 2006, 02:54 AM)

Darn those humanitarian organizations!

Fortunately, you are wrong and have nothing with which to back your statements (have you?).

Take a look:

QUOTE

The Commission on Human Rights should adopt a strong resolution on the situation in Chechnya, condemning ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by both parties to the conflict;

Abuses by Chechen Fighters. Chechen rebels committed numerous horrendous attacks on civilians in 2004. They are believed to be responsible for the massacre of hundreds of people in Beslan, blowing up two airplanes, a bomb attack on a Moscow metro station, and the assassination of pro-Russian Chechen president Akhmad Kadyrov. Rebel fighters also continued their assassination campaign against civil servants and others who cooperated with the Moscow-appointed administration in Chechnya.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/10/russia10298.htm

I am sure you will find similar examples of objectivity in other cases.

Terrorism is blamed by the UN and acted upon by the government in charge, so the humanitarian organisations have little to do about it. They try to monitor the actions taken in the name of fighting terrorism while being aware of the abuses inflicted by the other side.
So I really see no help to ciminals (?), terrorists (?) or aggressors (?).

take care

Posted by: AlexC April 01, 2006 08:56 pm

QUOTE

The Lobby Strikes Back

Harvard study of Israeli lobby's influence costs the academic dean of the Kennedy School his job

by Justin Raimondo

The reaction to the Harvard University study by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," [.pdf] has been fury by the Lobby and its partisans – and a demotion for Walt, who, it was announced shortly after the paper's release, would be stepping down from his post as [academic] dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government. As the New York Sun reports (via the Harvard Crimson):

"Yesterday's issue of The New York Sun reported that an 'observer' familiar with Harvard said that the University had received calls from 'pro-Israel donors' concerned about the KSG paper. One of the calls, the source told The Sun, was from Robert Belfer, a former Enron director who endowed Walt's professorship when he donated $7.5 million to the Kennedy School's Center for Science and International Affairs in 1997. 'Since the furor, Bob Belfer has called expressing his deep concerns and asked that Stephen not use his professorship title in publicity related to the article,' the source told The Sun."

The Kennedy School has removed its logo from the front page of the paper, and made more prominent a boilerplate statement to the effect that the school doesn't necessarily endorse any or all of the views expressed therein.

Now, somebody please tell me that Mearsheimer and Walt have overplayed the power and influence of the Lobby in American political life.

The hate campaign directed at Mearsheimer and Walt underscores and validates the study's contention that all attempts to objectively discuss our Israel-centric foreign policy and the pivotal role played by the Lobby are met with outright intimidation. We have O.J. Simpson defender and pro-Israel fanatic Alan Dershowitz claiming that the scholarly duo filched the majority of their sources from "hate sites" – although how Dershowitz knows this, without having looked directly over their shoulders as they wrote, is very far from clear. But don't worry, he assures us, a "team" of researchers on his staff is looking into the matter. One wonders if this is the same "team" that looked into the evidence and concluded that Simpson was innocent.

Virtually every mention of the study informs us that David Duke is among its most fervent defenders. The Boston Globe and the Washington Post both featured Duke's endorsement in their respective summaries of the controversy, and when the shameless Joe Scarborough of MSNBC had him on, he introduced the notorious racist this way:

"Thank you for being with us tonight, Mr. Duke. You have been attacked as a former Klansman, an anti-Semite, but tonight you're in league with Harvard University. Do you feel vindicated?"

Mearsheimer and Walt are the ones who should feel vindicated, because this sort of cheap demagoguery proves their point about the Lobby's modus operandi. Always they seek to set the terms of the debate in their favor: If you disagree with them and decry their influence, you're a "Nazi." How very convenient.

What would the Lobby do without the former Ku Klux Klan leader, who now inveighs against "ZOG" and the alleged perfidy of the Jews from somewhere in Central Europe? He ought to be getting some kind of stipend from them, in view of the tremendous service he performs: by setting up an avowed neo-Nazi as the chief spokesman for the other side, the Lobby gets to control the discourse.

Naturally, Scarborough would never have invited anyone like, say, Juan Cole on the show to defend the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis. He might have invited any one of a number of people cited in the study's 200-plus footnotes, including Antiwar.com's Ran HaCohen. But that is expecting far too much of the Lobby and its allies: intellectual honesty is not one of their strong points.

The same trope is continued and expanded on with Max Boot's contribution to the debate, in which he conjures the ghost of Richard Hofstadter, departed neocon scholar of "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," which sought, back in the early 1960s, to show that "right-wing agitation" (i.e., mainstream conservatism) was a psychopathology, rather than a bona fide ideology, consisting of little more than paranoid fantasies brought on by acute "status resentment." Hofstadter, in turn, was simply carrying forward and applying the "social science" of Theodore Adorno, the Marxist sociologist who famously diagnosed opposition to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policies as evidence of an Oedipal "father complex." So far, it's the same old malarkey, minus the footnotes, until, at the end, Boot bares his teeth:

"After finishing their magnum opus, I was left with just one question: Why would the omnipotent Israel lobby (which, they claim, works so successfully 'to stifle criticism of Israel') allow such a scurrilous piece of pseudo-scholarship to be published? Then I noticed that Walt occupies a professorship endowed by Robert and Renee Belfer, Jewish philanthropists who are also supporters of Israel. The only explanation, I surmise, is that Walt must himself be an agent of those crafty Israelites, employed to make the anti-Israel case so unconvincingly that he discredits it. 'The Lobby' works in mysterious ways."

But not too mysterious. As we see, above, Belfer got on the phone to Harvard – and Walt was out of the dean's office in no time. To notice this, however, is "paranoid."

There have been a few substantive commentaries on the Mearsheimer-Walt study, to my knowledge, one by Daniel Drezner, and another by Daniel Levy, a former top adviser to Israel's prime minister, which originally appeared in Ha'aretz. Drezner, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago and a very smart blogger, gives credit to the study for exploring truths that make people feel "very uncomfortable at cocktail parties," and concedes that there is much to be said for the thesis that Israel seems to dominate "some aspects" of U.S. policy-making. However, he nits and picks:

"Shot through these papers are an awful lot of casual assertions that don't hold up to close scrutiny. … The authors assert that, 'If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran.' I'm pretty sure that there's more to U.S. opposition to Iran possessing nuclear weapons than the protection of Israel."

It is true there may be other reasons why Washington might not want Iran to go nuclear, but there is no reason to believe that these might prevail over prudence in the absence of the Lobby's decisive influence. Drezner cites the study's contention that the Lobby's mere existence proves an imperfect congruence of Israeli and American interests – otherwise, "one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about." Drezner finds this "fascinating," he writes, because of

"The implicit assumptions contained within it: i) the only interest group in existence is the Lobby, and; ii) in the absence of the Lobby, a well-defined sense of national interest will always guide American foreign policy. It would be very problematic for good realists like Mearsheimer and Walt to allow for other interest groups – oil companies, for example – to exist. This would allow for a much greater role for domestic politics than realists ever care to admit."

Contra Drezner, Mearsheimer and Walt do not contend that the Lobby is the sole organization of its kind, only that they do a better job than anyone else. Far from denying the influence of domestic politics on foreign policy, the study shows that this sort of influence is decisive, especially in its discussion of the Christian evangelical-neocon convergence on the issue of Israel. Whether this comports with Drezner's understanding of "realism" is, really, irrelevant.

While Drezner does not agree with Mearsheimer and Walt, he is too intellectually honest to go along with the Smear Brigade's calumnies:

"On the one hand, it's a shame that this isn't being debated more widely in the mainstream press. On the other hand, it might be good if the mainstream media didn't cover it, if this New York Sun editorial is any indication:

"'It's going to be illuminating to watch how Harvard handles the controversy over the decision of its John F. Kennedy School of Government to issue a "Faculty Research Working Paper" on "The Israel Lobby" that is co-authored by its academic dean, Stephen Walt. On page one this morning we report that Dean Walt's paper has been met with praise by David Duke, the man the Anti-Defamation League calls "America's best-known racist." The controversy is still young. But it's not too early to suggest that it's going to be hard for Mr. Walt to maintain his credibility as a dean. We don't see it as a matter of academic freedom but simply as a matter of necessary quality control.'

"This is an absurd editorial – just about any argument out there is endorsed by one crackpot or another, so that does not mean the argument itself is automatically invalidated. As for Walt's sympathies towards David Duke, in the very story they cite, Walt is quoted as saying, 'I have always found Mr. Duke's views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world.'

"I didn't say this explicitly in my last post, but let me do so here: Walt and Mearsheimer should not be criticized as anti-Semites, because that's patently false. They should be criticized for doing piss-poor, monocausal social science."

Bravo – except for the "piss-poor" stuff. Drezner should ask himself, however, why it is that the debate over this study is being engaged in such a vicious manner by opponents of the Harvard study. Doesn't that say something about the role of the Lobby and its methods, as characterized by Mearsheimer and Walt? Drezner believes the authors have failed to demonstrate that Israel is a strategic liability, that "U.S. foreign policy behavior" is determined "almost exclusively by the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'" and that the authors "omit consideration of contradictory policies and countervailing foreign policy lobbies." Fine. All those points are debatable. But they aren't being debated. Instead, the Lobby is busy smearing the authors and getting Walt kicked out of his job as Kennedy School dean.

Daniel Levy, a former adviser in the office of Israel's prime minister, a member of the Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks, and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative, has the most thoughtful commentary to date, averring that the Harvard study "should serve as a wake-up call, on both sides of the ocean." He notes that "the tone of the report is harsh," and "jarring," that it "lacks finesse and nuance," but nevertheless,

"Their case is a potent one: that identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate, rather than by virtue of Israel being a vital strategic asset or having a uniquely compelling moral case for support (beyond, as the authors point out, the right to exist, which is anyway not in jeopardy). The study is at its most devastating when it describes how the Lobby 'stifles debate by intimidation' and at its most current when it details how America's interests (and ultimately Israel's, too) are ill-served by following the Lobby's agenda."

Hear! Hear!

Levy goes on to note that the response to the study by the Lobby "has been characterized by a combination of the shrill and the smug. Avoidance of candid discussion might make good sense to the Lobby, but it is unlikely to either advance Israeli interests or the U.S.-Israel relationship." In the course of his argument that the Lobby is just as bad for Israel as it is for America, Levy makes a salient point:

"The Lobby even denies Israel a luxury that so many other countries benefit from: of having the excuse of external encouragement to do things that are domestically tricky but nationally necessary (remember Central Eastern European economic and democratic reform to gain EU entry in contrast with Israel's self-destructive settlement policy for continued U.S. aid)."

The Lobby, by its success at neutralizing any effort to rein in the Israeli leadership's more extreme impulses, undermines the interests of the Jewish state. But the ideologues who make up the Lobby don't care about that: what they really care about is having the power to silence – and punish – their enemies.

The firing of Dean Walt is an outrage, one that should be met with a storm of indignation. That the Amen Corner would even attempt it – let alone go on the record as taking credit for it – is a testament to the Lobby's enduring and unchallenged power. It shows how the Lobby operates, and why they must be stopped before any real debate over the foreign policy of this country can be conducted.

The reasons for this extreme defensiveness on the part of the Lobby are not hard to discern. If they are the prime movers of U.S. foreign policy, then they do indeed have a lot to answer for. As the consequences of the Iraq war roll across our television screens, tracing a path of blood and mindless destruction, we have to wonder: who got us here? We have to question their motivations. And we have to ask: Why?

Who lied us into war? For whose sake did 2,300 American soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, die? Whose interests were served? The tip of the spear Mearsheimer and Walt have pricked the Lobby with is the contention that they were the decisive influence in pushing us into war with Iraq. And the howls that are coming from right, left, and center are proof enough that they have struck home.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8787

Posted by: Imperialist April 22, 2006 10:26 pm

QUOTE

MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud) chairman Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee:

"In the Second World War it was possible to operate an airfield 10 kilometers from the front. In the Yom Kippur War it was possible to operate an airfield 30 kilometers from the front. Today you need a distance of 50 kilometers to operate an airfield. Israel does not have any airfield like that. All our airfields and our air control units and the power stations and the sensitive strategic sites are within a few dozen kilometers of the border. As such, they are vulnerable to surface-to-surface missiles and to long-range rockets, which are liable to knock them out of action and paralyze the Israel Air Force. The concern is about a scenario that is the opposite of the Six-Day War. There could be an attack on all our airfields that would be similar in its effectiveness to the attack that resulted in the destruction of the Arab air forces on June 5 and 6, 1967. The result will be the Six-Day War in reverse. Accordingly, I see danger of a conventional victory against Israel. If we do not change our security concept and our force-building principles, we are liable to lose in a war."

"I have two main proposals: to accord Israel maritime strategic depth by its transformation into a sea power and to accord Israel firepower that is not dependent on airfields and planes but is based on tactical missiles that are cheap and precise.

If we do this, if we turn the whole eastern basin of the Mediterranean into an area under Israeli military control, and if we maintain in it vessels that will become Israel's maritime fire bases, we will thus replace the old and fragile pillar of the Air Force with a new and alternative and strong pillar that is capable of creating firepower of thousands of missiles that are fired from the sea and are not dependent on vulnerable, exposed airfields."

"I see an existential conventional threat based on the formation of two military alliances directed against us: an Egyptian-Saudi alliance in the south and a Syrian-Iranian alliance in the north. I am especially concerned about Egypt. I think that there is a concrete danger that Israel fell asleep and that when it wakes up it will find itself facing a very tough Egyptian military challenge."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/707577.html