Are you sure?

Most Israelis appreciate US support in recent decades, but are also concerned about US foreign policy in recent years: The Iraq war has made Israel less safe.

Saddam was not a big problem for Israel after they bombed Osirak in 1981.

Israel is concerned about Iran. The Iraq war strengthened Iran.

Besides, the Iraq increased Anti-Americanism and Anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, like "neocon jews controlling the US government started the Iraq war" and other nonsense.

Bremer's brilliant idea to design an Iraqi flag that looked like Israel's flag was not very helpful either.

From Haaretz:
"Disentangling Israeli interests from the rubble of neocon "creative destruction" in the Middle East has become an urgent challenge for Israeli policy-makers. An America that seeks to reshape the region through an unsophisticated mixture of bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel."
[url]http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=746312[/url]

I have read similar texts, but can't find them.

And I have spoken to Israelis, who do not approve of the Iraq war.

"Time for Our Community To Join the Iraq Debate - Forward.com"
"At the same time, to paraphrase Madeleine Albright, while our venture into Afghanistan eliminated the terrorist class of 2001, our war in Iraq has created the terrorist class of 2007. Saddam’s support for Palestinian terrorism was a clear danger, but Saddam’s Iraq was not nearly the base of terrorist activity it has become. One alarming legacy of Iraq is the large number of battle-hardened insurgents and terrorists.

Having developed effective new techniques and technologies to attack the infrastructure of civilian populations and the forces that protect them, it is not likely that these insurgents will be returning, like Cincinnatus, to productive work. After Iraq, where will their acquired skills most likely be aimed, if not at the United States and its allies, first and foremost Israel?
(...)
Furthermore, the dominance of an Iraqi Shi’ite political establishment friendly to, and likely supportive of, Iran greatly strengthens its regional influence — to Israel’s detriment. Not only has the war eroded America’s military deterrence power vis-à-vis Tehran, but if there were military action against Iranian targets, how much more emboldened would Iran now be in deciding whether to respond against the United States or Israel?

Even with Saddam’s removal, Israel is less secure as a result of the ongoing war in Iraq.
[url]http://www.forward.com/articles/time-for-our-community-to-join-the-iraq-debate/[/url]

Okay, the author is a rabbi rather than a foreign policy expert, but still.

Haaretz report from two weeks ago (23/05/2007):
"The U.S. ambassador to Israel reiterated Monday that Washington has not been pressuring Israel to rebuff Syrian offers of peace talks, denying a Haaretz report that the Americans have withdrawn their opposition to negotiations between Israel and Syria."
[url]http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/861901.html[/url]

So, it seems there was some controversy.
Some Israelis apparently think that the US had put pressure on Israel... Do they make the US their scapegoat?


The article continues:
"[b]The Bush administration has given Israel permission[/b] to discuss the future of the Golan Heights, security arrangements and Israeli-Syrian peace accords if it agrees to talks with Syria.
However, Washington has stipulated that Israel must not agree to any negotiations, even indirectly, on the United States' position, or on the future of Lebanon.
Furthermore, [b]Israel must not make promises to Syria regarding U.S. policy.[/b]"

The bold print indicates some interesting aspects of the US-Israel relationship, which do not advance US and Israeli interests.

Sure, the US and Israel are close allies, but the use of words like "permission" and "promises" gives a misleading impression, does not it?


This is from Dennis Ross from 05.07.07:
"To date, the pressure within the Israeli defense establishment to talk to Syria has not persuaded Olmert to drop his opposition to such talks--opposition that stems in no small part from the Bush administration being dead-set against the Israelis taking up Assad on his willingness to sit down with them. As far as the administration is concerned, Syria wants to use such talks, not to make peace, but to get Lebanon back and to forestall an international tribunal on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The Bush administration may be right. (...)
The lesson here is that the Bush administration needs to think far more carefully about its position on talks with the Syrians. Rather than simply telling the Israelis "no," it should work out a coordinated game plan with the Israelis, including common red lines for the talks."
[url]http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070507&s=ross050707[/url]

So the Bush admin cares more about Lebanon than about Israel?

If Israel and the US would talk with Lebanon and Syria, then this might help a bit with Iran and Turkish-Kurdistan mess, I hope.

Okay, Albania has not done anything, except naming their kids after US presidents.
I guess, "pro-American" means being thankful to the US. Okay, fair enough.

Re the claim of a post-Christian Europe:

Foreign Policy: Europe’s Christian Comeback

By Philip Jenkins

Posted June 2007

"Alarmist pundits prophesize that a secular Europe risks being overcome by its fast-growing Muslim population. Yet for all we hear about Islam, Europe remains a stronger Christian fortress than people realize."

[url]http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3881[/url]