.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (The Forward) – Israeli officials have been singing the praises of President Obama for his willingness to address their defense concerns and for actions taken by his administration to bolster Israel’s qualitative military edge — an edge eroded, according to Israel, during the final year of the George W. Bush presidency.
Amid the cacophony of U.S.-Israel clashes on the diplomatic front, public attention given to this intensified strategic cooperation has been scant. But in a rare public comment in October, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren praised the Obama administration’s response to complaints about lost ground during the close of the Bush years as “warm and immediate.”
“We came to the Obama administration and said, ‘Listen, we have a problem here,'” Oren, told a gathering of the National Jewish Democratic Council. “The administration’s reaction was immediate: we are going to address this issue, we are going to make sure that we maintain your QME [qualitative military edge].”
Jerusalem’s concerns, well-informed Israeli sources say, were also stoked by a massive $20 billion arms deal that the United States signed with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states during the Bush administration’s last year. In its attempt to counter Iran’s military buildup and nuclear ambitions, the former administration approved an arms contract that included upgrades of the Gulf countries’ air and naval capabilities, as well as advanced missile defense systems and modern satellite-guided bombs.
Israel orders 1st stealth F-35 squadron
Beyond correcting the perceived imbalance that developed under Bush, Israeli officials have also praised the Obama administration for increasing cooperation about missile defense. A November joint American-Israeli exercise, codenamed Juniper Cobra, was the largest and most extensive missile defense dry run ever held, and involved 1,400 American servicemen simulating responses to a possible attack against Israel. “The size and the high profile [of the exercise] are a signal from the administration about its commitment to Israel’s security,” an Israeli diplomat said.
Another deal that is highly anticipated in Israel is the expected sale of the advanced F-35 fighter jets to Israel’s air force. The Pentagon has offered Israel a unique version of the radar-evading future aircraft for supply in 2015. A deal is expected to be signed early next year.
Two years later, Israel will have its first operational squadron of F-35s, consisting of 25 fighter aircraft representing the cutting edge of U.S. technology (Israel’s too, it is hoped), capable of any mission. Iran too?
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Opinion polls are expected to provide a simple answer to an important question: What are the people thinking? But the details often reveal a much more complicated picture.
Take two recent surveys — one of American Jews and one of Israelis — dealing with attitudes about President Obama. The former found that support for Obama has plummeted, but a closer look reveals that the findings are virtually useless as a measure of American Jewish opinion. The survey of Israelis is scientifically solid, but the numbers provide a more complex, divided view than previously thought.
Meanwhile, the New America Foundation released a poll of 1,000 Israelis last week showing that Obama is more popular among residents of the Jewish state than had been believed previously — but he’s still not all that well-liked. Forty-one percent of Israelis have favorable feelings toward Obama, with 37 percent expressing an unfavorable opinion of the U.S. president.
But the poll also found that just 42 percent of Israelis believe Obama “supports Israel,” with 55 percent feeling that statement does not describe him. In addition, 43 percent said Obama is “naive,” and 39 percent said he is a Muslim.
Jim Gerstein of Gerstein/Agne Strategic Communications, also has conducted polls for the advocacy group J Street, which supports U.S. pressure on Israel and the Palestinians. Gerstein is a member of the group’s advisory council.
Obama’s favorable rating was higher than those garnered by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak (30 percent) and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (38 percent), but lower than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 51 percent and two previous U.S. presidents, Bill Clinton (59 percent) and George W. Bush (48 percent).
All those expensive high tech weapons are fine but it wasnt in that area that Israel lost to Hezbollah last time around. According to US and Israeli defence and intelligence forces that occurred because of low morale, poor command and control and that Israeli intelligence and command control were compromised from day one.
Still the expensive touys are good at wiping out wedding parties, family gatherings and schools, which is easier than fighting troops face to face. Needless to say the most scathiung report of Israeli performance in Lebanon was that when you are used to assualting women and children in Gaza you dont develop the toughness required to stand up to a trained fighting force of high morale (a leaked CIA assessment iirc)
For those interested A-Times covered most of this stuff in depth a long time ago.
Modern wars arent going to require advanced weaponry in the future but highly trained intelligent and able troops who can react to constantly changing situations and who can also converse in th elanguage oif the country they are in. Still spending money on what is needed doesnt help with the military industrial complex and generals are well tied in with that nonsense.
The real problem with most modern wars is that they are acts of aggression by wealthy, militarily powerful states against poorer, militarily weaker ones. Among the problems with that kind of warfare is that apart from being in the moral and ethical basement, the aggressor is battling something far more powerful than his military, and that is an indigenous force determined not only to survive, but to maintain independence. When that indigenous force is also a very well-disciplined, well-organized group with very canny leadership as Hezballah is, the aggressor can never win no matter how many wedding parties and orphanages, and hospitals they destroy.
Agree totally. Modern western and particularly US (and Israeli) military thought though misses this point totally. The lesson of the disastrous Vietnam defeat have never been learned. It would be a start if it was even accepted as a defeat.
If the lessons were truly learned then the “invasions” wouldnt occur and self determination would be allowed along with such ideas as working through international law to deal with “terrorism”. The west would be less of a target if this approach had been adopted a few decades ago. Things did not just suddenly start at 9/11.
Agree whole heartedly on every point!