YOUR COVENANT WITH DEATH –
YOUR AGREEMENT WITH HELL . . .
The US-Israel Strategic Alliance – Part I
By Doug Krieger
A STRATEGIC AND
This week (ending December 3, 2005) in Washington, D.C., the United States and Israel, after a three-year hiatus, resumed their “Strategic Dialogue.” This is different—very different. Something far more significant has commenced between the two allies facing the likes of a burgeoning insurgency fed by an Iranian President who insists that “ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP” and a resurgent Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas (Baathist Socialist-Shiite-Sunni) alliance whose intentions mirror those of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a “World Without Zionism” (Haaretz).
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claimed the Strategic Dialogue had broken off for “logistical reasons”—not because tensions over upgrading Israel’s Harpy anti-radar aerial drones, originally purchased by China in the mid-‘90s under Ehud Barak’s regime, were the actual cause of the estrangement (Israel sent the degraded drones back to China; ipso facto, it’s time to strategize (PINR)). Frankly, the US and Israel are harping about something else . . .
IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP
Targeting March of 2006, IDF Military Intelligence Chief, Major General Aharon Ze'evi, and Ariel Sharon have given official notification: Israel is not apt to abide the diplomatic ineptitude of the French, Germans, and British with the Iranians in stemming the inevitable WMD and the delivery systems now in place to fulfill the visions of Ahmadinejad, Osama ben Laden, and Zarqawi on behalf of Israel—let alone the aspirations of “democratic reforms” fashioned by Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood (BBC)!
“‘If by the end of March 2006, the international community (i.e., the inane efforts of the British, French, and Germans) does not manage to use diplomatic means to block Iran's effort to produce a nuclear bomb, there will no longer be any reason to continue diplomatic activity in this field, and it will be possible to say that the international attempts to thwart [Iran's efforts] have failed,’ Ze'evi said.” (December 2, 2005, Haaretz)
Indeed, the pivotal Brits (perennial toadies of the US-Israeli Axis) have no need to fear a politically defunct EU aghast at what an attack on Iran might engender throughout the Moslem World—at least not according to John Laughland in ICH:
“Will an attack on Iran put unacceptable strain on Euro-Atlantic relations? Will Britain be forced further onto the horns of the dilemma it has striven to avoid, namely to be forced to chose between the US and the EU? No. US and British policy has ensured that the EU will itself be in such turmoil over the next year that it will not be able to respond in any meaningful sense to a new act of Anglo-American aggression.”
As the “watch and see” Israelis reach “maximum vulnerability”—the US-Israel “special relationship” may, like the Syrian-Iranian Defense Pact of early 2005 (Fox News), evolve—by necessity—into a far more sinister tool of Western colonial imperialism. The Moslem World—and think not that I stereotype all Moslems into that “world”—is, notwithstanding the ineffective fringe of moderate-secular Islam, fixated upon the awful and inevitable prospect: THE US-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT!
THE US-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT—IT’S UNIQUE
This is a huge enchilada to swallow; thence, we shall dismember this wildebeest in four stages: (1) The nature of such a Defense Pact; (2) The circuitous route through Israel’s history it’s taken; (3) Allies behind the pact; and (4) The eschatological imperative embedded within an ultimate security agreement between the US and Israel (let alone the scores of nations who will sign on to such an arrangement). No, I don’t wish to sound presumptuously prophetic; however, if you still can’t see the elephant in the picture (having been mesmerized by the white crane taking a free ride atop the pacaderm) then let me disabuse you of your preposterous pigeon-vision perspective and get a bit stereoscopic: BEHOLD THE ELEPHANT COMETH!
First, let’s be clear, the aforementioned “strategic dialogue” between the USA and Israel is designed to put Iran on notice: The Elephant Cometh. Secondly, there’s no need to hide the obvious—nothing like putting the whole world on notice, for we’re about to see the wave peak: The Sea Change Cometh!
Now, Herr Hitler in Mein Kampf said he intended to kill the Jews—grief, he meant what he said. Well, today you have Radical Islamicists (who need little “doctrinal platform” from the Koran to launch their aspirations)—double grief, they intend to “Wipe Israel off the map.” Next, you have the Commercial West, led by the political chutzpah of the USA and the shock and awe of history’s most awesome military machine ever to countenance the planet—under girded by the recalcitrant “Bush Doctrine”—an amalgam of victorious democratic enforcement, buttressed by the Judeo-Christian-Evangelical-Zionist-Neocons, with the corporate elite picking up the rear, hoping they’ll get the contracts from this hyphenated juggernaut and the oil from not only Iraq, but also Iran et al.
Forgive, but at this juncture, the altruistic peaceniks—you know, the Air-head America Radio types—who have the supercilious notion that a unilateral and immediate pullout of American troops from Iraq and the entire Middle East, along with keeping “international accords” and the like to regain American stature and alleged credibility in the world . . . look in the Congressional Mirror and count them: 401 to 3—No-way-Jose!
The Israelis and the US know that their “strategic-special relationship” is not built on thin air—but upon a host of platitudes: Shared values; Judeo-Christian beliefs; Cold War allies; pioneer spirit (settlers); only democracy in the Middle East; over a million Israelis holding dual US citizenship (approximately ¼ of the nation); terrorized by the terrorists, Israel’s identification with the West, ad nausea, ad infinitum. Whoops, and as the Moslem World sees it: Shared Western decadence and heretical religious affirmations—right smack in the midst of the 10/40 Corridor, the Holy Land which Saladin et al took fair and square from the Crusaders way back when!
“Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the deepening and strengthening of ties with the United States has always been a central, essential issue in Israeli foreign and defense policy. In this context, the possibility of establishing a formal defense pact with the United States has arisen from time to time . . . since the end of the Cold War and with the progress made in the peace process, some complex elements have been added . . . it is clear that the nature of such a pact in the current period would be significantly different from one during the Cold-War era” (Yair Evron, Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies-Strategic Assessment).
This only gets more specific . . . as Mr. Evron—way back in October 1998—outlines the reasons for such a “Defense Treaty between Israel and the U.S.” (minor editing):
1. When Israel-Syria negotiations are resumed, a defense pact is likely to serve as part of American ‘compensation,’ offered in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, or within the framework of American guarantees for developing a ‘package’ of security measures, which would undoubtedly constitute a central component of such an agreement.
2. The subject of a defense pact might also arise within the context of the possible ‘leakage’ into the region (Note: Veiled allusion here to, at the time, Iraq, and assuredly Iran and even Syria—my edit) of nuclear materials or weapons from Russia . . . a defense pact would be likely to moderate or preclude the development of dangerous conditions.
3. Assuming the peace process continues, it is likely that a regional security system will be established; an important component of this regime would be (predicated) on (an) Israeli-U.S. defense pact.
Again, Mr. Evron’s perceptions regarding such a defense pact clearly grasps the overall strategic understanding between the USA and Israel; however, if you would—strategic peculiarity—of a defense pact occupies an “above and beyond” all Memoranda of Understanding, all elements of the existing strategic alliance between the two, and, most definitely, all existing military-cultural-religio affinities to wit:
“The idea of a defense treaty arose again in the 1970s and in the 1980s. During the Cold War period, the U.S. viewed Israel as a ‘strategic asset’ and a stabilizing influence in the region . . . Israel clung to this perception in the hope that mutual strategic interests would serve as a foundation strong enough to formalize defense relations between the two countries, despite the absence of a solution to the problem of the territories occupied in 1967. The 1982 Lebanon War and the continuation of the regional conflict, however, prevented such formalization, and it appeared that the U.S. would not be prepared to protect Israel’s borders if those borders included the occupied territories. In the absence of a formal defense treaty, Israel’s status was defined, for the first time, as a Non-NATO Ally in early 1987.” (ibid. Yair Evron)
Be very clear—the U.S. and Israel know perfectly well what such a DEFENSE TREATY entails. During the Peres government (and, who knows, sounds like Sharon-Peres will have a government again if their Kadima party wins in March, 2006—same time that Iran gets the bomb) in 1996 Israel pressed for just such an accord. But, that expectation was placed on the back burner when Netanyahu took over as Prime Minister.
BARAK – CLINTON – AND THE DEFENSE PACT
Never mind, Ehud Barak, strolling around Camp David with President Clinton back in 2000 knew precisely the cost of such a DEFENSE PACT. Bruce Riedel, Clinton’s Special Assistant for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council spelled out the financial ramifications and parameters of the elusive pact in an article found on bitterlemons.org.
Riedel spent time with Barak’s aides, Danny Yatom and Zvi Shtauber, in formulating the “defense agreement and the compensation package” that Israel would receive if they structured a peace deal with the U.S. Riedel related how the Israelis came to Camp David prepared—they “placed a draft of the DEFENSE AGREEMENT on the table along with a detailed list of financial and security requests” (Aluf Benn, Haaretz). Now, listen how Aluf Benn puts it:
“According to Riedel, Barak wanted a contractual format for the strategic relations between the U.S. and Israel, which had developed substantially over the years but lacked a formal dimension. His proposal was to sign an agreement in which the U.S. would agree to come to Israel’s aid in the event of future attacks and then get the pact ratified by the American Congress and the Knesset.”
Is that clear enough? O.K. let’s spell it out:
(1) $15 Billion in American aid—primarily upgrading the IDF
(2) $10 Billion to compensate the Palestinians
(3) $10 Billion for building desalination plants in Israel, the Palestinian state and Jordan
TOTAL: $35 Billion
Ultimately, the befuddled Riedel pondered . . .
“Two years after Camp David (2002) the tragedy of the missed opportunity that the summit presented is clearer than ever. Imagine a Middle East without the Intafada and with a peace agreement buttressed by an enormous reconstruction fund, akin to the Marshall Plan that President Truman used to rebuild Europe after World War Two” (ibid. Aluf Benn).
PERES AND THE ELUSIVE US-ISRAEL PEACE PACT
Remember, the 82-year old Peres has wanted a US-ISRAELI Defense Pact for a long time—positioning himself in the new Sharon-Peres Alliance provides ample space to conclude such a pact.
Back in 1995 Dore Gold contemplated Peres’ US-Israel Defense Pact in “Is a Mutual Defense Treaty Between Israel (and) the U.S. Needed?” He cautioned:
“Israel and the United States have already been allies without an alliance. But taking the relationship one step further to a formal treaty? In the past, Israel had no pretensions of being able to defend itself against the Soviet Union; thus U.S.-Israeli ties complemented the IDF’s independent military power. But in the context of an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty, a new strategic relationship could evolve into a substitute for Israel’s self-defense capability, with enormous implications beyond the peace process itself . . . the essence of a formal Israeli-U.S. alliance is the recognition that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States itself. And if that is the case, it can be argued that a treaty reduces the need for an independent Israeli deterrent
capability. Why not depend on the retaliatory power of American submarines in the Mediterranean? The alliance could thus become a useful instrument to get Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
WHY IS ISRAEL HESITANT TO SIGN THE DEFENSE PACT?
Interesting, isn’t it . . . for decades Israel has “gone it alone” – while increasingly relying upon the USA’s benevolence and “strategic cooperation” on many fronts . . . but there’s always been that slight, yet profound hesitancy to take the final leap into the DEFENSE PACT . . . a sample, to wit, of numerous Israeli leaders who have repeatedly warned:
“I don’t recommend that any one of us accept as a substitute (for Israel’s positions in the territories) even entering NATO, international guarantees or American soldiers” (Moshe Dayan, 1981).
“No army is a substitute for the IDF in protecting Israel’s security” (Yitzhak Rabin, memoirs) (Dore Gold, Jewish News Weekly, 1995).
In the “Middle East Forum for Promoting American Interests” Asaf Romirowsky mused (January, 2004):
“Sharon's deputy Ehud Olmert delivered a message that was clear. Israel must depend on its own ability to defend itself and not on international support. This accords with Ben-Gurion's vision that the dream must fit the reality we live in.”
Indeed, now that full-blown negotiations have once again commenced to conclude the infamous but ever-evasive Defense Pact with the Jewish State—which only AMERICA can conclude—is on the front burner, thanks to the acquiescence of Israel’s defense industry (Red Herring, August 17, 2005—Israel Fears U.S. Defense Pact)—one must bemuse oneself with Shai Feldman’s prognostications back in 1996 regarding “The Future of U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation” – especially in light of America’s pre-positioning of at least FIVE MILITARY BASES in Israel proper (William Arkin, January 2005), several hundred thousand troops in Iraq and throughout the region (whoops, CENTCOM forgot to identify those US bases in Israel again), Iran’s quest for WMD, and the persistence of the Hezbollah-Hamas-Syrian/Bathist alliance—let alone the obvious ramifications of Bush’s efforts to democratize the entire region!
“The conclusion of a U.S.-Israel defense pact would clearly have a number of important advantages:
· Clarifying and formalizing America’s commitment to Israel;
· Making U.S.-Israel ‘special relations’ less reversible;
· Enhancing Israeli deterrence and thus providing an added hedge against a deterioration of the peace process.”
Yet lingering within the Jewish psychic is Shai’s “nevertheless” . . .
· It would erode the Israeli ethos of self-reliance and the positive impact that this has had on Israel’s ability to mobilize its internal resources and on America’s willingness to support Israel;
· It would be difficult to define against whom the treaty would be directed and under what circumstances it would be activated, particularly under conditions of an evolving Arab-Israeli peace process;
· It would embroil the U.S. and Israeli governments in a lengthy and potentially politically costly effort to gain ratification of such a treaty by the two countries’ legislatures;
· It might raise the issue of nuclear proliferation in very stark terms—possibly involving the U.S. government in a number of interrelated debates such as the applicability of its extended deterrence in the Middle East and the continued rationale of regarding Israel as a ‘special case’ in U.S. nuclear non-proliferation policy.
There you have it . . . “A comparison of these advantages and drawbacks would seem to indicate that it would be wise for the U.S. and Israel to refrain from adopting a new ‘constitution’ for their partnership and instead pursue enhanced strategic cooperation within existing frameworks” (Shai Feldman, Washington Institute, 1996).
The exhaustive discourse/analyses by Yair Evron back in 1998 concluded—in spite of all the “cons” amongst the “pros” . . .
“There are weighty arguments both for and against concluding a defense treaty between Israel and the U.S. Such a pact involves certain costs to Israel, but it is likely to amplify the country’s general security and guarantee the special relationship between the two countries, even if one of the factors in the foundation of American support is weakened. The treaty would serve as one axis of stability within different regional-political-strategic structures expected in the future.” (Yair Evron, An Israel-United States Defense Pact?)
There is but one nation—and one nation which has always held a “strategic relationship” with Israel: The United States of America. There is only one nation with whom Israel would conclude such a formal, definitive DEFENSE PACT, TREATY with whom she has so diligently cultivated militarily, culturally, and even religiously: The United States of America. The inexorable justification for this COVENANT – this AGREEMENT – this DEFENSE PACT – is not only inevitable, it is MANDATORY!
“HAPPY TRAILS TO YOU . . . UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN”
Well, this is not “Goodbye.” This is Part I in a three-part series on “Your Covenant with Death – Your Agreement with Hell!” But why so metaphorical? Why such an intimidating title to an otherwise understandable geopolitical reality—don’t all signs point in this direction? Indeed they do. For those of you who do not grasp the eschatological ramifications associated with such a DEFENSE TREATY-PACT, you will find the additional articles exceedingly potent and, on the one hand foreboding, but on the other hand they exude hope and relief that such a TREATY between Israel and the U.S. will catapult us all into that final period—that conclusive destiny—proposed so long ago to relieve humanity of its confusion, war, desperation, and inequity. I leave you with Isaiah’s poetry—to fathom the unfathomable:
“Fear and the pit and the snare are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth. And it shall be that he who flees from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit, and he who comes up from the midst of the pit shall be caught in the snare; for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth are shaken.
“The earth is violently broken, the earth is split open, the earth is shaken exceedingly. The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall totter like a hut; its transgression shall be heavy upon it, and it will fall, and not rise again. It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord will punish on high the host of exalted ones and on the earth the kings of the earth.
“They will be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and will be shut up in the prison; after many days they will be punished. Then the moon will be disgraced and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before His elders, gloriously.
“I will make justice the measuring line, and righteousness the plummet; the hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters will overflow the hiding place. Your covenant with death will be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol (hell) will not stand; when the overflowing scourge passes through, then you will be trampled down by it . . . it will be a terror just to understand the report . . . now therefore, do not be mockers, lest your bonds be made strong; for I have heard from the Lord God of hosts, a destruction determined even upon the whole earth” (Isaiah 24:19-23; 28:17-19, 22).