U.S.-Israel tensions have long history
Michael Oren wrote two excellent books about the Middle East, “Six Days of War” and “Power, Faith, and Fantasy.” He is a superb historian. It was thus extremely disturbing to read J.’s account of his recent talk in which he repeated his bogus claim that a “no daylight, no surprises” agreement traditionally informed U.S.-Israel relations (“Ex-ambassador Oren breaks down U.S.-Israel alliance,” July 10).
Although, happily, we have shared significant goals, our relations have hardly been as close as Oren pretends.
Secretary of State Marshall’s opposition to the recognition of Israel, Eisenhower’s pressure on Israel to withdraw its forces during the Sinai War, the Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty (which, accidental or intentional, demonstrates an American desire to obtain independent intelligence), the Israeli resistance to the Rogers Plan, Nixon’s delay in resupplying Israel during the Yom Kippur War until after Israel implicitly threatened the use of nuclear weapons, U.S. pressure on Israel not to destroy the 3rd Egyptian Army during the Yom Kippur War, Ford’s reassessment of relations in the face of Rabin’s perceived unreasonableness, Carter’s support for a Palestinian homeland, Reagan’s consideration of sanctions against Israel to stop the siege of Beirut, consistent American disapproval of Israeli settlement activity, and the fact that the U.S. Embassy is not in Jerusalem — these are typical examples of tensions that have permeated U.S. relations with Israel.
So why would Oren make this absurd claim? To depict Obama as departing from established U.S. policy, thereby undermining trust in his judgment and intentions. By falsely painting Obama as someone who is radically altering U.S. policy toward Israel, he seeks to cast doubt on Obama’s trustworthiness regarding the Iran deal.
One of the phenomena Oren recounts in “Six Days of War” is how Jordan was duped into attacking Israel by Egyptian propaganda about their imminent victory. Oren should know better than to base policy on fantasy.
Yonkel Goldstein | San Carlos
Clinton needs to take a stand on nuclear Iran
Your recent article “Report: Soros, Saban give total of $3 million to Clinton campaign” (July 10) raises serious question about Mrs. Clinton’s suitability for the presidency. As reported, she “has been noncommittal” on the Iranian nuclear deal. “Donors who oppose the deal are under the impression that she shares their reservations, while those supporting the agreement believe that she agrees with them…”
If there is any issue on which presidential candidates must be clear, it is the Iranian strategic nuclear program. Iran is a rogue regime that thinks nothing of occupying another nation’s embassy in violation of all international law and custom (ours in 1979) or coordinating the bombing of a Jewish community center (Buenos Aires in 1994).
Their nuclear program, which went on for 17 years in compete secrecy until revealed to the world by an Iranian dissident organization, is a critical issue for the international community. The regime’s constant threats to wipe Israel off the map make the necessity for clarity here even more pressing. Mrs. Clinton should be well aware of the advancement of the Iranian nuclear capacity (200 to 17,000 centrifuges), since much of it occurred during her tenure as secretary of state.
The next president will very quickly face a host of national security issues, one of the foremost being Iran. Clarity on the issue, which seems absent in the case of Mrs. Clinton, will be necessary. Hopefully the Jewish community will evaluate candidates’ positions on this existential threat in deciding how to vote for our next commander in chief.
Steve Astrachan | Pleasant Hill
Ode to Hillary rather odious
Ron Kampeas’ ode to Hillary Clinton omitted much of her hateful behavior (“In Hillary Clinton’s journey, a history of Jewish kinship,” June 26). In March 2010, a low-level Jerusalem district planning commission’s approval of the construction of 1,600 homes in a Jewish haredi Orthodox neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo of eastern Jerusalem was announced by Peace Now, an organization that foolishly believes the Arabs will instantly make peace with Israel, if only no Jews were allowed to live in eastern Jerusalem or in Judea and Samaria.
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden went ballistic at this announcement, which had been under the radar of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and of which he was unaware. Biden and Obama excoriated Netanyahu, but given Hillary Clinton’s supposed love for Israel, according to Kampeas, it was even worse when the then–secretary of state piled on Netanyahu in a 45-minute phone call, lambasting him and Israel for every sort of disreputable behavior.
We should also remember that in 1999 Hillary Clinton sat by as Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat’s wife, Suha, accused Israel of poisoning Palestinians and then closed their joint appearance with an embrace of Suha Arafat.
Arthur Cohn | Portola Valley
When Jews feud, it helps Iran and other enemies
I am writing this letter on July 12, Sunday afternoon, with the proposed nuclear deal with Iran imminent. While no one at this time is certain what will be in the proposed deal, the battle lines are already being drawn in our own community. AIPAC already has a video explaining all of its doubts about the emerging deal. J Street has a video supporting the proposed agreement. This will be as much a battle between Jews in the United States as it will be over the merits or demerits of the anticipated deal.
On July 10, Iran posted a new video game titled “Missile Strike” with a graphic display of missiles hitting Israel. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called America the eternal enemy and called for death to the United States and Israel. In Israel, left, right and center are deeply troubled by the near certainty of a deal.
Given the importance of the United States in the unfolding drama, we had best understand that a fratricidal war between Jews works to the advantage of our enemies.
The problem is not Israel, it is Iran. I oppose a deal with Iran because I do not trust them to keep any deal. I hope that as a unified community we can all agree that the bottom line is that Iran must never be able to have a nuclear capability.
John F. Rothmann | San Francisco
Instead of two states, a proposal for three
How about a three-state solution?
Since August 2001, the Palestinian Authority has been split into two factions, each seeing itself as the true representation of the Palestinian people: the Fatah-ruled Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Many times a country separated in two as Palestine is by land or water will have both parts become independent, especially if they are divided by different political and religious beliefs. Take Afghanistan and Bangladesh, for example. There are many other examples.
I propose a loose federation between Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. In other words, a three-part solution. It is not unusual for fighting countries to become friends — for example, America now considers Japan and Germany as friends.
This federation may take time, maybe 40 years, but we must get started. Israel would have to make concessions by building companies or universities on its neighbor’s land so they could become economically independent.
For such a federation to work, major countries must be willing to support this three-part solution, and the next generation of Israelis must also buy into the concept. That is how we can return to the core values on which Israel was built.
Paul Kameny | San Francisco
Water scarcity solutions found in J., and Israel
I have been enjoying reading J. I was particularly interested in the articles about solutions to water scarcity in Israel. Perhaps Dan Pine is the staff member who should see this. I have written a 3,500-word piece on water in California that is being featured on the Planet Experts website (www.planetexperts.com/author/judithadler) in three parts. I was able to reference what is being done in Israel, thanks to your articles.
I am curious to know if California is making any changes as a result of the June 11 meeting in Sacramento co-sponsored by the Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region.
Judy Adler | Walnut Creek