Thursday, December 18, 2008

JINSA Policy Principles: Part II (Israel, again)

Another cogent analysis by JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. It may be read at

The emphasis is on the foolhardiness of suggestions that Israel rely on other forces, such as NATO, to provide security, citing the way a UN presence in Lebanon, Gaza and Jenin has served to protect Arab terrorists and made it more difficult for Israel to defend itself. JINSA correctly writes: "No American - or NATO - soldier - should stand where a terrorist army can form behind it, ever. Period."

Unmentioned is one other great drawback if it tried to provide security.

Until now, one of the reasons Israel has been a great asset to America is that Israel's strength has enabled the United States to enjoy the benefits of power in Israel's part of the Middle East without the risk and expense of deploying American forces.

Israel has actually saved the United States enormous amounts of money because we haven't had to keep troops there. In contrast, we already spent trillions of dollars keeping troops in Europe, Japan and elsewhere, effectively paying for the right to protect them. The military assistance we provide Israel is a pittance in comparison and also pays us enormous dividends.

Using our troops to try to protect Israel, besides doing the reverse - undermining Israeli security, would risk damaging an arrangement which has been tremendously beneficial to America.


There is NO Santa Claus said...

Nice to see you're paying attention to JINSA. I like JINSA a lot and participate in the organization when I can.

primerprez said...

I'm not just paying attention to them; I just sent in my annual contribution. Although I don't agree with everything they say (I don't agree with everything anyone says), it's refreshing to see an organization that says it the way it sees it without mincing words because it thinks it might embarrass someone or might be politically inconvenient.