Defense official on Ukraine policy: Israeli policy needn't be identical to U.S.'

[Jefferson23]

U.S. officials angry over Israel's lack of condemnation of Russia.'

By Barak Ravid and Jonathan Lis | Apr. 13, 2014

Israeli policy is driven by its own security interests and does not need to be identical to that of the U.S., a senior defense official said Sunday in response to Haaretz's report that White House and State Department officials in Washington have built up a great deal of anger over Jerusalem's "neutrality" regarding Russia's invasion of the Crimean Peninsula.

Senior figures in the Obama administration have expressed great disappointment with the lack of support from Israel for the American position on the Ukraine crisis and with the fact that the Israeli government puts its relations with the United States and with Russia on the same plane.

The head of the Defense Ministry's political-security department, Maj. Gen. (Res.) Amos Gilad said in response to Haaretz's report that Israel's policy on the matter was driven by its own security interests, which should not be confused with that of the U.S.

"Israel is following the events… and we have here a plethora of security challenges," Gilad said in an interview with Army Radio on Sunday morning. "Israel is watching the conflict in Ukraine and recording the events, and focusing on the issue of national security which will influence not only our present, but our future as well."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.585374

[Jefferson23]

1. U.S. officials angry: Israel doesn’t back stance on Russia

Amid tension, Netanyahu backs out of event he was invited to personally by Putin.

By Barak Ravid | 02:49 13.04.14

White House and State Department officials in Washington have built up a great deal of anger over Jerusalem's "neutrality" regarding Russia's invasion of the Crimean Peninsula. Senior figures in the Obama administration have expressed great disappointment with the lack of support from Israel for the American position on the Ukraine crisis and with the fact that the Israeli government puts its relations.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.585333

[TwilightGardener]

2. Russia is enabling Iran--why do we now care if Iran goes nuclear, if Israel

calls its ties with Russia and America equally important? Why are we spending so much time and money countering the Iran threat, when Iran is only a threat to Israel? Time to cut ties. Let Russia take care of Israel. No more middle eastern wars for American kids to die in, no more trillions spent.

[Jefferson23]

3. All great questions, we'll see how far Israel takes this realtionship..US not happy about it.

[aranthus]

4. Because the real threat is not to Israel.

Where do you get the idea that the threat from Iran is to Israel alone? In fact the threat is to the oil countries of the middle east: Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc. A nuclear armed Iran is in a much better position to threaten and undermine those countries. Israel can defend itself against Iran. The oil states can't.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Gen. Dempsey was just in Israel assuring them we'd bomb

the shit out of Iran if they pull a fast one. SA wants to get nukes from Pakistan to counter Iran if it goes nuclear, but of course, they would very much like it if WE bombed Iran and Syria for them, same as Israel. Iran wants to be a regional power (with Syria and Iraq's help), and Russia is doing its best to make that happen. Both Israel and SA should therefore see Russia as an enemy--Israel shouldn't be cozying up to them unless they're prepared to lose our support and aid. I hope like hell we aren't going to give them stuff like the F-35--they obviously can't be trusted with our technology. Again, time to say farewell to this friendship.

[Jefferson23]

6. Iran is not the threat, Saudi Arabia has a host of reasons why they are fearful..not necessarily

legitimate...far from it.

I do find it interesting that Israel is moving closer with a Russian alliance..bemildred brought this
to the groups attention last week..lots of perks possible for Israel, even makes sense for their
concerns on Syria. Israel may feel that if they support Assad remaining in power as Russia does,
at least they are familiar with him, as opposed to the rise of radicals in Syria.

And just think of the immigrant numbers that would be welcomed to Israel, they seem always
concerned about secular Jews and assimilation to be a threat to their majority status.

[Scootaloo]

9. There is no "threat"

Nor is there a single shred of evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

It's bullshit, promulgated by Israel and Saudi Arabia for purely political reasons - both with hte hope that the US will go to war for them.

[bemildred]

7. +1.

Yep. Although it will take a bit more to be sure it's not a head fake of one sort or another. If the Ukraine situation continues to deteriorate, it may force the issue. And the EU may have something to say on both counts.

[Igel]

8. Of course.

It gives the lie to "Israel controls the US" or "the US bought and paid for Israel." If there's light between them, it means they're different entities. Hard for some to swallow.

At the same time, Israel can imagine a seriously similar situation. Let's say that the PA declares independence and establishes a border with some Israeli population centers on the P side of the I/P border. What's Israel's correct action in this situation? Do nothing?

But it works the other way. What if Jordan establishes an All-Arab Popular Front, like Putin's Vserossiiskii narodnyi front, one that claims culture and language as the unifying feature of Arab civilization and aims to unite all Arabs and restore their history. There's an international division for handling Arabs in non-Arab countries like, say, Iran and Israel. The Front and its leader, the Jordanian president, then eyes the Arabs in Israel and says that they're under his and his country's protection. The Arabs are on the wrong side of the border.

The two situations are similar in most respects. You can't know which answer you need--intervention is good or intervention is evil--until you know what side you're on. If you're going to intervene, it's good; if you're being intervened against, it's evil.

There is no principle here that's acceptable to modern Western views of politics. It's all tribal, whatever lipstick, wig, eyelashes, foundation and blush, Armani jacket, etc., you put on the pig. It's the Miss Piggy of international politics.