WHAT THE HELL WAS THOMAS LIFSON THINKING?
Today, the American Thinker (should be called that way any longer?) published a virulently anti-American piece of garbage written by Israeli Likudnik Ted Belman, who has written hateful anti-American screeds on AT before. In his latest ‘article’, however, Belman outdid even his own previous anti-American screeds, calling the US an enemy of Israel (where he lives, having immigrated there from Canada) and accusing it again of appeasing Arabs at Israel’s expense.
Belman claims that:
“Before the ’67 War, U.S. policy was mostly hostile in that the U.S. imposed an embargo on arms to Israel for 20 years, from ’47 to ’67; was passive during the War of Independence, expecting Israel to be defeated in short order; and ordered Israel out of Sinai after Israel conquered it in the Sinai Campaign.”
This is clearly wrong. The US was selling tons of weapons to Israel even before 1967 (under JFK, for example, it sold Israel weapons worth 5 times the weapons it sold to Arab countries); and during Israel’s War of Independence, which Israel won easily, President Truman recognized Israel as an independent state just 11 minutes after Ben Gurion announced its creation, and met with first Israeli President Chaim Weizmann. As for the 1956 Suez War, which Belman calls “the Sinai Campaign” and which was an unprovoked act of aggression against Egypt by three countries (Israel, France, and Britain), the US and the USSR together acted to stop this aggression, with the Soviet Union even threatening France and Britain with nuclear war. The Eisenhower Administration did the right thing.
Then, Belman claimed:
“This policy was ameliorated in the aftermath of the ’67 War as reflected in Res. 242 of the UNSC, which established the principle that Israel was entitled to secure and recognized borders before withdrawing from the conquered territories.”
That is also a lie. Resolution #242 of the UNSC requires Israel to withdraws from the occupied territories BEFORE a peace agreement is made, and established the principle that all countries in the Middle East – not just Israel – are entitled to secure and recognized borders. It gives such right to all countries in the Middle East, not just Israel. It furthermore makes it clear that Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, termination of all states of belligerency, and respecting every ME country’s and territorial integrity is a PRE-CONDITION OF, and a BASIS FOR, any peace agreement, and that any peace agreement must be built on that foundation. John McHugo has already dealt with this common, but false, Israeli claim of the meaning of the Resolution in his landmark paper “Legal Reappraisal of the Israeli Right-Wing Interpretation of UNSC Resolution #242”.
Belman then continued to lie:
“By that resolution, the U.S. recognized that an agreement on borders had to be negotiated and that of necessity, Israel would be retaining some of the land. Of course, a friend should have taken the position that Israel was entitled to keep all the land it had acquired in the defensive war.”
These are also blatant lies. Firstly, UNSC Resolution #242 does not require nor prohibit any land swaps; it does NOT, however, authorize Israel to retain any of the land conquered in 1967 by any means other than a negotiated peace agreement (if it authorized Israel to retain any land by virtue of conquest, it would have contradicted itself, because it affirms the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war). And no, a friend would not have to take the position that Israel was entitled to keep all the land it had acquired, or even any part of it. Israel was not entitled to that land. As for the 1967 war – even if it were a defensive war, which it was not, it wouldn’t have mattered, because since the end of WW1, no country in the world has the right to acquire territory by war, even victims of aggression. The vexed question of who attacked whom during the various Israeli-Arab conflicts is therefore totally irrelevant.
And so we come to Belman’s most ridiculous claim, divided into a few sentences throughout the article:
“But the U.S. was committed to being friends with the Arabs, particularly Saudi Arabia, and this commitment excluded it. That has always been U.S. policy, right up until today. (…) given this history, requiring Israel to return to the ’67 lines, even with swaps, suggests that she is really an enemy.”
Belman thus betrayed his real opinion: he considers the US an enemy of his country (Israel).
Thus, he’s an enemy of the United States.
The US has been consistently backing Israel since 1967, providing it with consistent diplomatic, financial, and military assistance not provided to any other country in the world. It has been selling (or giving for free, in the case of F-35 jets) the most modern weapons to Israel (many of which have ended up in China), and giving it intelligence information it denies to other allies. It doles out $4 bn per year of financial aid to the Israeli military, some of which is used to buy bulldozers and build settlements. It has fought wars for Israel’s benefit (vide the Iraqi war) and now, Obama is seriously considering launching the US into another disastrous war with another non-threat, Iran, solely for Israel’s sake. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 33 UNSC Resolutions (more than all other permanent UNSC members combined), all of which were vetoed solely because they were critical of Israel. At Camp David in 2000, by the admission of one participant of the 2000 summit, “far often we functioned as Israel’s lawyer.” US Administrations have expressed only muted concerns, and very rarely, about Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. Yet, Belman is not grateful and calls the US an enemy of Israel?
How dare he?
What more does he want? The US bombing Iran and all Arab countries to the Stone Age (or annihilating them)? More American money to raze Palestinians’ homes and build settlements on Palestinian lands? More American blood and money to be spilled and spent in quagmires for Israel’s sake?
Actually, I don’t care what he wants. He’s not an American, and he’s an enemy of the United States. Moreover, his articles are anti-American BS. So it doesn’t matter what he wants. He should, and will be, ignored by every sane person. The only commenters who agree with him on AT are Israeli citizens and Israeli Firster traitors with American passports (they don’t even deserve to be called Americans) who have chosen Israel over the US. As Jesus rightly said, a servant cannot serve two masters. One cannot be loyal to two countries simoultaneously, one can be loyal to only one country, and it’s clear that the US isn’t the country these saboteurs are loyal to.
Belman also claimed that:
“Shortly thereafter, the U.S. quietly negotiated an agreement with Israel limiting Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria to infilling for natural growth. I am sure Israel didn’t ask for such an agreement. During the intifada II, Sen. Mitchell was sent to study the Arab violence. On April 30, 2001, he submitted the Mitchell Report, which rewarded the violence by demanding that settlement construction cease. (…) President Bush recanted a bit in his letter to Sharon in ’04 in which he referred to Res. 242 but not the Saudi Plan, which was then called the Arab Initiative, as the basis for negotiations.”
Israel doesn’t even need these settlements to account for “natural population growth” and immigration; in any case, it has built far more settlements than it needed for this purpose; and it has built it on Palestinian land, where it has no right to build anything. Period. Sen. Mitchell was right to point out that the Palestinians were outraged because a foreign country was razing their homes, expelling them from the ruins of their homes, and building settlements on their own land. What would the American people do if Canada invaded the US, razed American homes, threw the American people out of these homes, and built settlements on US soil, on the ruins of these homes?
“Upon taking office, President Obama disavowed Res. 242, the longstanding agreement permitting infilling, and disavowed the Bush letter as binding. He openly has embraced the Saudi Plan and has called for negotiations based on the ’67 armistice lines with swaps. In doing so, he has pulled the rug out from under Israel — or, in today’s parlance, has thrown Israel under the bus.”
This is garbage. Obama has not expressed anything other than mute concern about settlements, has embraced UNSC Resolution #242 as a basis for negotiations, as have all previous US presidents, and negotating a peace agreement on the basis of the pre-1967 armistice lines with mutually-agreed land swaps has been the policy of EVERY US government since the Johnson Administration. Obama has not thrown Israel under the bus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israeli-US cooperation under President Obama has been as good as ever, and Obama has been no worse for Israel than any previous President.
Belman has been known as a hateful enemy of the United States for quite some time. And in comments under his article, several people have shown their true colors. But what remains a mystery is why the American Thinker (or should it be called the Israeli Thinker?) published his hateful article. Why did this e-zin publish a hateful anti-American article from a foreigner? Why does it continually allow this anti-American foreigner to libel the US and express his hatred towards this country on its website?
AT Chief Editor Thomas Lifson and AT Submissions Editor Drew Belsky should be embarrassed. If they want to save whatever few shreds of credibility AT retains yet (if any), they will delete this article and apologize for it. If not, they will prove that AT is worthless and I will consequently cease submitting any article to that e-zin.
And if the Israelis really believe that the US is an enemy of Israel*, fine, let them cope without this “enemy”, then. The Congress should cut off all funding to Israel, and the US should stop selling any weapons to Israel. Let’s see how Israel will fare without the US.
Israel needs the US, but the US doesn’t need Israel for anything.
With America sinking in debt, and with draconian budget cuts being imposed on America’s own defense, its time to end subsidies for Israel.
*To be clear: I know that the vast majority of Israelis see the US as Israel’s ally, as does the Israeli Prime Minister, and that Ted Belman speaks for no one but himself and the fringe wing of the Likud Party. Nonetheless, his article is absolutely unacceptable, and AT’s Chief Editor should delete it immediately.