Opuscula "Obama’s" aid To Israel: The conditions

SOON TO BE EX-PRESIDENT Obama reminds everyone how many billions of dollars “he” arranged for Israel over the next 10 years (in excess of US$38 billion) to counter the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution he initiated.

What no one talks about is that MOST of those billions come back to the U.S.; the “catch” for Israel is that it must buy U.S.-made war materials, e.g., F-35s from Lockheed Martin. Israel MAY be able to add/substitute a few Israeli-made components in the plane, but 90% of the aircraft will be at least “assembled in the U.S.A.”

Obama is not the first president to give Israel presents with not just “strings” but "hawsers". I discovered this while working in Israel’s defense industry “back in the day.”

While it LOOKS good on paper -– “Obama authorizes $38 billion deal for Israel” — in reality — a reality the general media conveniently ignores — is that it is a way for the U.S. government to subsidize its OWN defense industry.

Moreover, it is a way for the U.S. government to test its “Made-in-America” war materials in actual combat without risking American lives. If Russia supplies weapons to one of Israel’s enemies and if the U.S. and Russia can provoke a war — or at least a skirmish — then their weapons’ functionality can be seen in real life (and death) situations.

Crass but reality.

Worse, in some cases, the U.S. provides weapons to BOTH Israel and its enemies; as an example, the PA “police” are outfitted with U.S. made rifles. They also are trained by U.S. instructors paid by U.S. tax dollars.

In the world of “foreign affairs,” everything is muddled, clouded.

There is nothing particularly wrong about propping up your own industries, and there is nothing inherently wrong with attaching “strings” to a country’s largesse.

The problem is that the administration — any and all administrations — claims it gave a nation “n” number of billions in foreign aid when in fact Congress had to authorize the aid and when in fact much of that aid will be coming back to the U.S. as payment for orders for U.S. made — or at least assembled — products.

Moreover, as the Israelis learned, U.S. products cannot be improved upon in Israel and then resold sans U.S. approval. Case in point:

---

Excerpt from United States-Israeli Relations by Adam Powers (Editor), Clyde R. Mark (Editor), Kenneth Katzman (Editor)

---

Taken in context, Obama’s legacy vis a vis Israel is a black eye for the soon to be ex-president. His pique that Netanyahu failed to bow to Obama’s wishes — as Obama bowed to Saudi royalty — was expressed many times during Obama’s residence in the White House, culminating with the latest, albeit not expected to be the last, slap at Israel and Netanyahu.

Petty and vindictive easily describes both Obama and Netanyahu — to the disgrace of both the U.S. and Israel. Truly Dilbertian leadership.

Opuscula Why does Israel Act as if Obama’s UN action is A surprise?

IN A MOVE TO MAKE THE U.S. State Department trolls happy, soon-to-be ex-president Obama told his rep to the UN Security Council to abstain on an anti-Israel vote, assuring that his friends in the PA would remember him as if he was a shahid to their cause.

Israeli media seems “shocked” by Obama’s order, yet any Israeli — certainly any Israeli in politics or the media — knew the abstention was in the works. It was the culmination of the almost ex-presidents anti-Israel bias over the last eight years.

Blame it on the personal feud between Obama and Netanyahu, but don’t act surprised.

Obama’s dislike of Netanyahu, Israel, and Jews embarrassed even leaders of his own (Democrat) party.

According to media reports,

The Obama administration’s decision to abstain from a United Nations Security Council vote on Israeli settlements on Friday was the subject of intense opposition from lawmakers in the president’s own party, with Democratic leaders warning that the resolution will damage efforts to advance peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Incoming Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said hours before the vote that “the proposed resolution does not bring us any closer to the goal of a two-state solution. Peace must come from direct negotiations between the two parties.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) similarly condemned the resolution on Thursday, saying that the vote “seeks to place responsibility for continued conflict fully on Israel and ignores violence and incitement by Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaderships. Any workable and long-lasting solution to this conflict must come about through direct, bilateral negotiations, and this resolution undermines that effort.”

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, added on Thursday that “the UN should stop wasting its time trying to embarrass Israel, and the United States should continue the policy of vetoing anti-Israel resolutions.”

The ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), said on Friday that the resolution “does nothing to move forward the shared goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security. This resolution is one-sided and unfairly calls out Israel without assigning any blame for the Palestinian role in the current impasse.” Cardin emphasized his support for “direct negotiations between the parties” and criticized the speed with which the resolution was pushed to a vote, saying that “by introducing the resolution yesterday and scheduling a vote this week, other members of the Security Council have not had sufficient time to consider the text.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) warned on Thursday that the “resolution would undermine, if not undo, the chances for productive discussions between the two sides,” remarks echoed the following day by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who also called the resolution “unconstructive.” Sen. Sherrod Brown called (D-Ohio) stressed on Friday that “any lasting peace must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians, not imposed by the international community.”

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) noted that “longstanding U.S. policy has been to stand with Israel against attempts to use the United Nations to internationalize the peace process, and that policy should be maintained.”

“I am concerned that some delegations to the United Nations continue to advance counterproductive resolutions such as the one introduced this week, while they turn a blind eye to international crises that should demand our immediate attention and action, including the conflict in Syria and Russian aggression in Ukraine,” he added.

Perhaps those who agree with the almost ex-president — including many of Hollywood’s luminaries, even those who forgot their promise to leave America — continue to ignore the reason why there cannot be a peace treaty between Israel and the so-called Palestinian Authority.

The Arabic language media reports that Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, praised its “most outstanding” terrorist attacks in two posts over two days on its Facebook page, according to the monitoring group Palestinian Media Watch. One post highlighted the “10 most outstanding operations” in the entire history of Fatah; the other the “10 most outstanding operations in the Al-Aqsa [Second] Intifada”, the wave of Palestinian violence lasting from 2000-2005 and killing more than 1,000 Israelis. The former post showed a flag of “Palestine” depicting all of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Incitement to violence by Fatah and Palestinian leaders has been a constant driver of the conflict, and was responsible for a wave of stabbings and car rammings that has killed more than 40 Israelis since September 2015. Fatah boasted in August that it had “killed 11,000 Israelis.” Abbas praised a Jordanian who was shot while attempting to stab Israeli Border Police officers as a “martyr” in a condolence letter to his family last month. He has consistently refused to condemn acts of terrorism. A senior adviser to Abbas stated this past June, “Wherever you find an Israeli, slit his throat.” When a Palestinian terrorist went on a stabbing spree in Jaffa that killed American Army veteran Taylor Force, the PA’s official TV news station called the terrorist responsible a “martyr” and on Twitter, Abbas’s Fatah party hailed him as a “martyr” and a “hero.” Last February, Abbas met with families of terrorists who carried out attacks against Israelis, telling them: “Your sons are martyrs.”

Inciting terrorist acts is the PA “leadership’s” idea of pressuring Israel to commit national suicide. The single democratic state in the region has repeatedly caved to Arab pressure only to find the Arabs’ promises of peace were not worth the paper on which they were printed.

Why Israel remains a member of the UN, in which it is the only nation condemned for “human rights” violations when even the left-wing media occasionally reports on atrocities around the globe , while “PA” terrorists daily attack Israelis and the “PA” leadership incites hatred of Jews and Israel from pre-kindergarten until the grave, is beyond my ken.

Why the U.S., which soon thankfully will have a new president, continues to fund an organization that unfairly condemns its ally and that often berates the hand that feeds it, likewise if beyond my ken.

There will soon be three countries that can deal with each other and all other states without need of the (dis)United Nations: China, Russia, the U.S.

The UN failed in its mission to avoid wars. The UN failed in its mission to protect human rights (consider Africa, consider China and North Korea, consider Muslim-dominated nations). The IDEA of the UN -– a later-day League of Nations whose failures soon were recognized and the League disbanded — was good; the implementation is found lacking.

As for Israel, even the retiring UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, admits to the world press that (T) he organization has a “disproportionate” volume of resolutions against Israel, which he believes has “foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively”.

Addressing the UN Security Council, Ban said: “Over the last decade I have argued that we cannot have a bias against Israel at the UN.

"Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.

”Two state solution” Reality check

LIBEREALS LOVE IT, REALISTS ACCEPT IT, HAREDIM REJECT IT

“IT” is a “two state solution” to the Israel/”Falistinian” problem.

“IT” is “complicated.”

“IT” requires cooperation from Jordan and Egypt and support from the more pragmatic Muslim nations (e.g., those afraid of Iran).

“IT” in reality is a THREE (3) state “solution."

“IT” won’t work until Hamas and Abu Mazen & friends stop attacking Israel.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, a “two state solution’ is NOT a solution. There are at least five (5) entities involved:

   1. Israel

   2. Egypt

   3. Jordan

   4. Abu Mazen’s “Palestinian Authority”

   5. Hamas’ Aza (Gaza)

Why politicians — U.S. and otherwise — insist on an unworkable “two-state solution” is beyond this scrivener’s ken. It ignores the reality on the ground.

WHAT DOES A “STATE” NEED?

Consider what a viable state (nation, country) needs.

   Access to “the world”

      To import raw materials

      To export finished products

      To permit residents and visitors access/egress

   Productive organizations (that EXCLUDES “government”) to employ its populace and pay taxes to support the non-productive organizations (e.g., government)

The so-called “Palestinian Authority” lacks ALL of the above save for the non-productive government.

It effectively is land-locked. It lacks both functioning airport and seaport; the only way it can get to either is via Israel. It also lacks a direct (not via Israel) land corridor to Jordan and its air and sea ports as well as access to Syria and Saudi Arabia, two potential trading partners.

Aza, on the other hand, DOES have access to the sea and it does have — albeit now in disrepair — the Arafat International Airport.

There are, according to Wikipedia, four airports in PA or Hamas controlled territory.

Two are in Hamas’ Aza:

Yasser Arafat International Airport in Rafah once had flights to several Muslim countries, including Egypt and Jordan. The IAF closed it in 2000 in retaliation for attacks on Israeli civilians originating in Aza.

Gush Katif dates back to WW 2 and was once Aza's northern airport.

In 2004, the airfield was in a good state of repair. The runway was kept clear, and runway markings were maintained. Following the handover to the Palestinian authorities along with the rest of Gush Katif, the airstrip was no longer maintained. It became partially covered by sand and reduced from a width of 75 ft to approximately 30 ft of usable tarmac, and the 225 ft overrun and backtracking loop at the northwest end became blocked with sand. By 2014, it was clear from aerial imagery that expansion of UNRWA Khan Younis, including a sewage treatment plant constructed on the former runway threshold, made it entirely unusable.

Atarot Airport -- built where the Jewish settlement of Atarot was located before the British leveled it and its fields for airport expansion. The airport is located near Jerusalem and Ramallah; it was closed by Israel to civilian traffic after the breakout of the Second Intifada in 2001.

Before its closure, Atarot accommodated international flights.

Muqeible Airfield is an abandoned military airfield located in the northern West Bank, approximately 1 km southwest of the village of Muqeible, and 3 km north of Jenin. The airfield consists of two crumbling concrete runways.

Even if the airports were repaired, Israel cannot permit their use since they would be used by the PA and Hamas to bring in materials to murder Israeli civilians. The only way Israel can tolerate use of these airports is to control all flights in and out. This cannot happen if Hamas’ Aza and the PA become states; the UN — with its proven role in Aza as a supplier of terrorist hiding places and its role in teaching hate for Israel and Jews in UN schools — cannot be trusted to honestly monitor flights into (and out of) these airports.

If Hamas had used the concrete imported to rebuild the area to rebuild, rather than to build more tunnels into Israel and Egypt, the Arafat International could have been repaired; if Hamas would stop killing Israeli civilians, it might be able to have limited use of the airport.

Israel has established peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.

It is possible that an Egyptian army presence at the Aza airfields to control what comes in and what goes out, and a Jordanian presence at the airstrips located in the PA territory to do the same thing might be acceptable to Israel, the PA, and Hamas; however, given Hamas’ attacks on Egyptians, it is not likely Egyptian soldiers would be welcomed in Aza.

THE ROAD TO JORDAN

The PA needs direct access to Jordan.

The map shows the PA territories A and B and the current Israel-Jordan crossings. Note that there are no ways to travel from PA A or B directly to Jordan. (Travel from Aza to Egypt is direct via the Rafah crossing.) Indeed, for the most part there are few contiguous areas in Areas A and B, and no connection between the PA and Hamas’ Aza. The closest PA community to an established crossing is Jericho. There is a Jordanian highway that parallels the Israel-Jordan border.

Until the PA can work with Israel to join its fragmented communities and to develop a secure roadway to Jordan, it must depend on Israel’s good offices to permit transit to Jordan (or to Israeli ports). That depends on the PA ceasing its incitement against Israel — including cessation of its “kill the Jews” indoctrination of school children via texts and tv. So far there has been no indication that this will soon occur.

While PA citizens have been able to work in Israel, the PA prohibits Israeli firms from opening productive business in the “Jew-free” PA territories. Yet, while the PA has proven financial support from both Muslim and non-Muslim benefactors, it has so far been unable to create employment for its citizens. (The same applies to Hamas’ Aza.) A nation must encourage private enterprise to provide employment for its people — and tax revenue for its government. Neither the PA nor Hamas have shown any inclination to entice businesses to set up in their “countries to be.”

Unlike the PA, Hamas’ Aza has access to the sea. It’s problem is that neither Israel nor Egypt trust it to bring in materials for use in projects other than those leading to the murder of Israelis and Egyptians.

Israel, the PA, and Hamas’ Aza have one thing in common: none is rich in natural resources; all must import-manufacture-export as revolving door countries.

THE REALITY

The reality as I see it — and I am not a politician or pie-in-the-sky diplomat – is that statehood for the PA and Hamas’ Aza depends solely on peace with Israel and Egypt. So far, neither Abu Mazen nor Hamas’ leadership has shown any inclination to coexist with Israel and Egypt.

After WW 2 the U.S. rushed to the aid of its allies AND its enemies to help restore battered economies — even at the expense of American businesses. Once the shooting stopped, the rebuilding commenced. For the most part, that approach was successful in keeping the peace (except of course for U.S. manufacturers put out of business by the former enemies’ new, more efficient equipment; it effectively put an end to U.S. steel manufacturing).

Neither the PA nor Aza are ready for nationhood. Unlike Cuba, they have no natural resources (Cuba had sugar and tobacco) and they lack a guaranteed market (Cuba had the Soviet Union). Until they have access to raw materials, the ability to manufacture something from those raw materials, and a way to move the manufactured goods to foreign customers,, they have no way to sustain themselves.

Nationhood for the PA and Aza is guaranteed to end in failure and eventually insurrection against the despotic governments pressing for statehood.

A two or three state solution to the Israel-PA-Aza festering sore will do nothing for the people living in the PA areas or Aza; it’s a pipe dream.

* * * * * *

Yaakov Kirschen's Dry Bones cartoon for 2 March 2017. (This blog entry, "Reality check," originally was published 15 December 2015.)