marsnow,
et al,
Most everything of "value" is a liability of some sort. Your car is a liability and you buy insurance to cover that. But, in being a liability, doesn't make something intrinsically bad; it doesn't stop it from being necessary or you using it. Hell, General Petraeus was both a serious strategic and political liability
(you may recall he had to resign under fire) organizationally and personably.
Gosh, the former head of forces in Iraq General Petraeus said that Israel was a strategic liability. Obviously we are not allowed to discuss or question that liability ever unlike every other ally we have on the planet. I don't give a damn about Israel either way. I care about the interests of one country and one country only -- the USA.
(COMMENT)
The discussion of the relationship between the US and Israel comes with a very complex study pertaining to reliability and defect analysis. The persistence of the relationship requires constant maintenance and the delicate tweaking of the political policies that effectively interact with the regional influences, as well as, the productive furtherance of global relationships.
The relationship between the US and Israel is not exclusively based on the net value of today's benefit. We are talking about a country in which the US shares virtually all of the same basic political and social developmental values; and is located in a region that is extremely important to US strategic economic and resource interests; which is exactly opposite --- and does not share the same values as America.
Since the 1967 War, and the occupation of the territories, support for Arab-Israeli peace efforts has weighed heavily on the US. US Policy stipulates that any such Peace Arrangement be based on the preservation of Israel and the Jewish National Home. The assurance of an “extended regional deterrence” is a tangible asset to the Israelis, but also an intangible asset in terms of the global perceived value of an American alliance and its realistic resolve and moral commitment; a commitment that cannot be abandon lightly --- in the face of very serious consequences.
In saying this, and assessing the value of a steadfast relationship with Israel, we also have to examine, with a critical eye, the entire issue and potential consequence of overturning the
status quo of occupation in the West Bank and turning loose the Palestinians in a 100% autonomous landscape. Because once it is done, the west would have a difficult time in corrective action should it turn sour. And that is of an exceptionally grave issue to American Strategic Interest.
Realistically, the release of occupation
(in favor of autonomy) does not guarantee peace and security either for Israel, regionally, or globally. The region is crawling with terrorists, insurgents, jihadists, fedayeen, would be freedom fighters, wannabe martyrs, and third party Islamic actors just waiting to jump in and take control for the accomplishment of nefarious goals and objectives. Even HAMAS, with some significant hold over the Gaza Strip population and some limited influence in the West Bank, is masquerading as a legitimate political party, yet totally controlled by fanatical militants that will take any opportunity to strike. No matter how you frame it, the Israeli Occupation and Containment process is contributing greatly to the internal security of the surrounding Arab Kingdoms and struggling Arab Democracies. Israel, in many respects, is doing the heavy lifting not just for itself, but for much of the Arab League. The sudden and uncontrolled release of containment could have incalculable repercussions that could spread well beyond the present zone of control.
Most Respectfully,
R