15.06.2015 Views

Final_Judgment

Final_Judgment

Final_Judgment

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

[68] <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Judgment</strong> 129<br />

Given the configuration of the [Israel Defense Forces], these were anything<br />

but defensive weapons.<br />

"The $92 million in military assistance provided in FY 1966 was<br />

greater than the total of all official military aid provided to Israel<br />

cumulatively, in all the years going back to the foundation of that nation in<br />

1948." 188 Green summarizes the massive extent of Johnson's giveaways:<br />

"Seventy percent of all U.S. official assistance to Israel has been military.<br />

America has given Israel over $17 billion in military aid since 1946,<br />

virtually all of which—over 99 percent—has been provided since 1965." 189<br />

ISRAEL'S INTERESTS FIRST<br />

It was clearly Lyndon B. Johnson who set the precedent for unlimited<br />

aid to Israel. All told, however, the death of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon<br />

Johnson's assumption of the Oval Office marked a major change in overall<br />

U.S. policy. As Stephen Green writes, in all too clarifying detail in Taking<br />

Sides: America's Secret Relations With A Militant Israel:<br />

"In the years 1948-1963, America was perceived by all of the<br />

governments in the Middle East as a major power that acted upon the basis<br />

of its own, clearly defined national self-interest. Moreover, U.S. Middle<br />

East policy was just that—Middle East policy; it was not an Israeli policy<br />

in which Arab countries were subordinate actors.<br />

"In the years 1948-1963, Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy<br />

firmly guaranteed Israeli national security and territorial integrity, but just as<br />

firmly guaranteed those of Jordan, Lebanon, and the other nations of the<br />

region. That was what the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 was all about.<br />

"For successive Israel governments in this period, the boundary line<br />

between U.S. and Israeli national security interests was drawn frequently,<br />

and usually decisively. Truman's policies on arms exports to the middle<br />

East, Eisenhower's stands on regional water development and on territorial<br />

integrity during the Suez Crisis, and Kennedy's candor with Mrs. Meir—all<br />

of these were markers on this boundary line.<br />

"Nevertheless, during this time U.S. financial support for Israel far<br />

exceeded that given any other nation in the world, on a per capita basis. And<br />

U.S. diplomatic support for Israel in the UN and elsewhere was no less<br />

generous.<br />

"But the limits to U.S. support for Israel were generally understood by<br />

all of the countries of the region, and it was precisely these limits that<br />

preserved America's ability to mediate the various issues that composed the<br />

Arab-Israeli dispute.<br />

"Then, in the early years of the Johnson administration, 1964-1967,<br />

U.S. policy on Middle Eastern matters abruptly changed. It would perhaps<br />

be more accurate to say that it disintegrated. America had a public policy on<br />

the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, but suddenly had a covert policy of<br />

abetting Israel's nuclear weapons program. We had a public policy on arms<br />

balance in the region, but secretly agreed, by the end of 1967, to become<br />

Israel's major arms supplier.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!