We will continue to shield Israel, militarily and diplomatically, U.S. official says

[Poll_Blind]

From Haaretz:

Speaking during a reception for outgoing Israeli UN envoy Shalev, U.S. envoy Susan Rice says that Washington remains fully and firmly committed to Israel's security.

The United States will continue to maintain Israel's military advantage as well as protect it in the diplomatic arena, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said Wednesday, adding that the American commitment to Israel's security was "not negotiable."

--snip--

"That commitment spans generations and political parties. It is not negotiable, and it never will be," Rice added, saying the United States would "continue to strengthen Israel’s qualitative military advantage so that Israel can always defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats."

The U.S. UN envoy also reiterated the U.S. conviction to defend Israel in the diplomatic arena, saying that, "as U.S. President Barack Obama] pledged, we will continue U.S. efforts to combat all international attempts to challenge the legitimacy of Israel—including and especially at the United Nations."

That phrase "qualitative military advantage" is (and has been for a while) code for top-shelf military hardware, the best and most-sensitive technologies the United States has in its arsenal. If I recall correctly, that phrase is also specifically written into the Democratic Party platform in regards to Israel as well. I think it's been there since at least 2000 if not earlier.

The other thing, which probably doesn't need so much pointing out is the phrase "...we will continue U.S. efforts to combat all international attempts to challenge the legitimacy of Israel—including and especially at the United Nations."

There really isn't any secret that the U.S. will do just about anything to protect Israel.

But what it won't ever do is protect Israel from itself.

As harder and harder right-wing governments continue to shape and reshape Israeli laws and society, and as those governments become more and more actively belligerent militarily towards their neighbors, why should we feign surprise when our protection of those awful actions reaps retaliation?

:shrug:

PB

[activa8tr]

1. Very depressing. Why are we rewarding a state that engages in

intentional deadly aggression against their neighbors?

[Poll_Blind]

3. Good question.

PB

[activa8tr]

2. Very depressing. Why are we rewarding a state that engages in

intentional deadly aggression against their neighbors?