The Republicans and Israel

With James Baker and his cronies about to sell Israel down the river on one side, and Jimmy Carter and his ilk on the other, I have to say that I don’t trust either party when it comes to maintaining Israel’s existence as the lone democracy in the Middle East, and the ancestral homeland, and last refuge, of the Jews. But it’s getting a little tiresome to keep hearing people tell me what great friends of Israel are the Republicans. Maybe the rank and file, but the ones in charge of things? Not so much.

Here we have a perfect illustration of the anti-Israel Republicans, and even worse, it’s Henry Kissinger, a Jew. One of the things that never left my mind is a picture I saw of a protest in Israel regarding Kissinger’s Mideast diplomacy. It stated: “In U.S., he is Kissinger, in Israel, he is Killinger.” The reason? Well, in this conversation with the Iraqi foreign minister in 1975, here’s Kissinger ready to sell out Israel to curry favor in the Middle East, even talking about the waning power of the Israel lobby.

Hammadi: This is my painting of the picture now—up to 1980. You say the United States is bringing all its weight to bring about a settlement. But this is a settlement, not peace. A new wave of troubles and clashes will start because Israel is not a state to stay within what they are. Because if there is an opportunity, they will expand. The record shows it. And they are supported by the biggest power in the area. What the United States is doing is not to create peace but to create a situation dominated by Israel, which will create a new wave of clashes.

Kissinger: I understand what you are saying. When I say we are willing to improve relations with Iraq, we can live without it. But it is our policy to move toward better relations. I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated. And I would say that until 1973, the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed.

We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world. You yourself said your objection to us is Israel. Except maybe that we are capitalists. We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions. I don’t agree that Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years, Israel will be like Lebanon—struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.

You mentioned new weapons. But they will not be delivered in the foreseeable future. All we agreed to is to study it, and we agreed to no deliveries out of current stocks. So many of these things won’t be produced until 1980, and we have not agreed to deliver them then.

Our policy is to move our policy towards peace and to improve relations with the Arab world. Iraq is not a negotiator, but I think the policy of Egypt and Syria to improve relations with us helps us to bring pressure for a settlement.

The Israelis like you better than [Egyptian president Anwar] Sadat because they like to put it in terms of a U.S.-Soviet problem. We don’t want you to have unfriendly relations with the Soviet Union; we don’t interfere in your relations with the Soviet Union. But basically, the Israelis prefer radical Arabs.

If the issue is the existence of Israel, we can’t cooperate. But if the issue is more normal borders, we can cooperate.

Read the rest. It’s just as bad. Hat tip: Lynn.