And how does our former anti-Soviet bulwark help us in the post-Cold War era? Reportedly it sells the technology we supply to Russia, China, and other of America's great "friends." It suborns U.S. citizens to commit espionage against their country on Israel's behalf. It corrupts U.S. domestic politics and elections via AIPAC and other organizations. It deliberately alienates and provokes the growing American Muslim community by inviting prominent Jewish-Americans -- including the mayor of New York -- to come to Israel and cheer on its invasion of Gaza and the Muslim casualties it has produced. And how does America reward this sterling ally-like behavior? The president-elect makes his chief-of- staff a U.S. citizen who abandoned the United States during the 1991 Iraq war to serve with the IDF. Seems to me that if America had a few more allies like Israel we would be well and truly sunk.

Parenthetically, I am delighted that I will not be the CIA officer who has to brief soon-to-be-president Obama every morning with an IDF veteran listening to America's most important secret data. After such an expeirience, how would you ever pass the polygraph?

Larry Korb argues here that Israel was a bulwark against Soviet expansionism in the Middle East.

How?

Israel had vitually no interaction with the Arabs throughout that period except to fight them in pursuit, not of the goals of the putative "alliance" with the United States, but rather in pursuit of its own goals. In fact, the unending contest with Israel caused many Arab states to turn to the Soviet Union, China and other Warsaw Pact countries to obtain the "toys" that they wanted for the purpose of continuing their tribal feud with the Israelis.

How do I know that?

What are the expressions about "turnip trucks" or "first "rodeos?" I have been in a lot of meeings with Arab leaders who made their positions on this very clear.

Several other contributors on this point are correct: America is not attacked by Islamists because of Israel. But one of the reasons America is attacked by Islamists is because of Washington's unlimited and unqaulified support for Israel. This is a staemnt of fact, not opinion or analysis. It goes along with the fact that the Islamists attack us because we are the protectors of Islamofascist tyrannies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and elsehwere. Surely a fact is a fact and ought to be the basis for discussion when we find American treasure and soldiers being spent to defend Israel and various Arab police states.

Since the state of Israel came into being 60 years ago, U.S. security interests have been threatened by the Soviet Union during the Cold War and in the post Cold War period by extreme regimes like Iraq and violent extremists like Al Qaeda. Even if one sets aside “the emotional and religious anchors of the U.S.-Israel alliance,” the alliance has been a net plus for the United States in practical, realpolitik terms.

During the Cold War, the U.S.-Israel alliance prevented the Soviet Union from expanding its influence in the Middle East. Had Israel “lost” either the Six Day War in 1967 or the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Soviet influence in the Middle East would have grown exponentially. Moreover, after the Israelis came within a short distance of conquering Cairo in the Yom Kippur War, Egyptian President Sadat made peace with Israel, evicted his Soviet advisors and Egypt became a U.S. ally and remains so today. The Israeli victories were in part a result of the military aid and assistance that the U.S. furnished.

Similarly, since the end of the Cold War, the U.S.-Israeli alliance has paid dividends for the U.S. Had the Israelis not bombed the nuclear reactor in Osirak and held their fire when Saddam Hussein launched scuds against Israel, it is not likely that the U.S.-led Operation Desert Storm to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait would have been successful or even possible. Moreover, as the U.S. tries to diffuse the grievances that attract people to groups like Al Qaeda by pushing authoritarian regimes in the Middle East to become more democratic, the Israeli political system serves as a model that demonstrates the benefits of being a democracy. Finally, by confronting Hezbollah and Hamas militarily, Israel helps contain Iranian expansionism.

But like any other alliance, this does not mean that the U.S. and Israel always act in concert or in a way that is mutually beneficial. When Israel takes actions that undermine our interests, we can and should call them out on it. For example, in 1956, when Israel (along with out British and French allies) tried to take control of Egypt, President Eisenhower was correct to put a stop to the operation. Or in 1982, when the Israeli government did not stop at Lebanon’s southern border but marched to Beirut, President Reagan did the right thing in calling Prime Minister Begin and telling him to halt the invasion.

All alliances carry with them liabilities as well as benefits. Most often the benefits one side accrues are viewed by the other and liabilities and vice versa. Churchill valued the strategic relationship with the United States because this country brought manpower, industrial might and money to the party. He saw American naiveté, coupled to the demand for leadership in the Alliance, as distinct liabilities. America values NATO precisely because it is represents the aggregate power of the Western democracies. The inherent decision making weaknesses of an alliance of equals and the tendency of many of NATO’s members to act as free riders are distinct liabilities. Kind of like a marriage.

So, is Israel a strategic liability? In some ways, yes. Is it an ally of strategic value to the United States? Absolutely. More important, the balance between liabilities and assets in the relationship with Israel clearly tilts towards the latter. Israel is the only secure, available U.S. outpost in the region. We cannot even count on the reliability of the government in Baghdad that we put in place past the end of December 2010. If U.S. military forces are reduced over the next few years in response to budget difficulties, we will need all the capable allies we can find. Military, politically, technologically and culturally, one of these will be Israel. The only strategic values of the other states in the region – with the singular exception of Turkey – are as repositories of oil and as places for the basing of U.S. expeditionary forces.

More important, the question as posed presupposes that either the U.S. could pursue better its current strategy by ‘ditching’ Israel or that there is an alternative strategy could be formulated in the absence of this special relationship. U.S. interests in the region center on oil above all. There is very little in the relationship with Israel that affects this one way or the other. Oil has continued to flow regardless of the state of affairs between Arabs and Jews for more than thirty years. Other interests include non-proliferation, counterterrorism and general peace and stability. On the issue of proliferation, the problem centers on Iran whose interests in acquiring a nuclear weapon have little to do with Israel. I have more to say about this below. With respect to counterterrorism, abandoning Israel would probably do more to fuel terrorism than anything else the U.S. could do. On the subject of peace and stability, the majority of conflicts on the region has virtually nothing to do with Arab-Israeli relations and would not be militated by a change in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

.

Could the U.S. pursue a different strategy if it were not tied to Israel? With whom and about what? The U.S. has close ties with all the major players in the region, despite the special relationship with Israel. Could it create a Sunni Arab alliance against Iran? If the current threat posed by the regime in Teheran is not enough to scarce the living daylights out of the Gulf States, nothing else will. Selling out Israel would not be a quid pro-quo for anything.

In fact, the only relationship that could improve if the U.S. walked away from its commitments to Israel is that with the European and American Left. Since their power is most illusory, a function of the media, they can be safely ignored.

Israel is a strategic asset not only for the United States. It also carries a lot of water for a number of the Arab countries. The Israeli battle with Hamas and Hezbollah serves the interests of theocratic-monarchial governments such as Saudi Arabia, as much as it does Israel’s. The same is true for the secular countries such as Egypt. That is why the majority of Sunni Arab countries complain about Israeli aggression in relatively muted tones, at best.

Moreover, Israel would have something to say about any effort by Washington to ditch it as part of a new strategy. It could make the costs for the United States resulting from a change in their relationship much higher. In particular, Israel would be forced to make its nuclear deterrent an overt part of its security strategy. This would inevitably create a proliferation cascade in the region and torpedo any hopes for a broader global denuclearization process. Any action to distance Washington from Jerusalem could also make an Israel military action against Iran all but inevitable.

If Israeli is a strategic liability for the U.S., then all I can say is we need another dozen like it.

I agree with Bruce Hoffmann: Israel is not the reason our enemies are anti-American. They are opposed to the United States for many of the same reasons they are opposed to Israel, and it's a dangerous illusion to believe that opposition would cease if we no longer took an interest in defending Israel's judgments because we would make the same judgments if we were in their difficult position.

Egypt's position on Hamas is perhaps the one we should be keying off. The Mubarak government blames Hamas for bringing this about by attacking Israel, is disappointed Palestinians have made so little of the opportunity presented by Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, and is exasperated with the posing of other middle eastern states who are contributing so little to solving the problem. And while so many decry that about a quarter of the casualties of Israel's invasion are civilians, few point out that all of Hamas' intended victims are civilians.

In my judgment Israel is not a strategic liability because enduring alliances are based on common views of the world. If the regional government of Saskatchewan were firing rockets into North Dakota, would we react any differently than the Israelis? I doubt it.

America's close relationship with Israel is driven more by domestic politics in the U.S. than strategic considerations. However, the relationship has provided numerous strategic benefits to the United States. First, Israel is a reliable base of operations and listening post in the wortld's biggest oil-producing region. Second, Israel often acts as a proxy for U.S. military interests in the region, for example by destroying the Osirak reactor. Third, there is little doubt about Israel's commitment to supporting U.S. goals in the region. Fourth, it is the most technologically advanced country in the eastern Mediterranean. And fifth, it shares our values concerning freedom and tolerance, making it a role model for nearby nations.

While Israel's defensive efforts occasionally create problems for America, failure to continue support for the Jewish state would call into question U.S. dependability in places like Cairo and Riyadh. Much of the Arab rhetoric about Israeli aggression and Palestinian suffering is posturing for local consumption rather than sincere concern. Note how little neighboring states are doing to aid Hamas in its hour of need. Most of the Arab regimes would rather see Hamas go away than Israel.

With due respect and apologies to the moderators, to ask for a balance sheet of ways in which Israel benefits the United States is to divert attention from real U.S. policy issues regarding Israel. Not only that, it diverts attention in a way that makes clear-headed analysis of those issues--which have to do not with grand balance sheets but instead with how the United States should respond to specific Israeli actions and policies--even more difficult than it otherwise would be.

So much discussion in the United States about Israel involves extremes and absolutes, or knocks down implied straw men that are defined in terms of extremes and absolutes. Arguments are made against "abandoning" Israel or ending all support to Israel, as if there were no alternatives to either current policies or abandonment. Arguments are made about other causes of terrorism or anti-Americanism as if the question were whether Israel is responsible either for all of those ills or none of them, but couldn't possibly be responsible for some of them. Arguments are made that center around the existence of Israel as if that existence, rather than certain Israeli policies, were at the heart of current U.S. policy issues concerning Israel.

The absolutist quality of discussion badly distorts thinking about actual policy issues. Because the balance-sheet approach leads people to conclude that Israel is more of a good guy than a bad guy, or more of a good guy than Hamas or whomever it is opposing, there is a tendency to think it ought to be supported in whatever actions it happens to be taking at the moment. That may make emotional sense but not logical sense. The frequent reminders that the U.S. and Israel share democratic values lead people to forget that the policy issues chiefly concern Israeli policies that have nothing to do with defending democracy but instead have to do with such things as actions in occupied territories (and also lead them to forget that every occupation is inherently undemocratic). Litanies of other interests that the United States and Israel share lead people to overlook the other matters--perhaps less numerous, but still very important--on which U.S. and Israeli interests diverge. The litanies tend to reinforce the unfortunate taboo against any discussion of divergence between US. and Israeli interests.

These patterns are all too apparent in discussion of the current bloodshed in the Gaza Strip. Much of that discussion goes little beyond the simplistic "Hamas--fires rockets--bad; Israel--goes after the rocket firers--good". The current administration's public posture doesn't go beyond it at all except to add the usual mild (and also as usual, feckless) admonition about trying to go easy on the civilian casualties. Most discussion overlooks the astonishing disproportionality represented by those casualties, which in just a few days have become an order of magnitude greater than all of the Israeli victims of all of the rockets fired from the Gaza Strip since the Israelis departed it several years ago. The discussion also largely bypasses whether the current conflict could have been avoided by more attention to the Israeli blockade of Gaza (the other major subject of the cease-fire that broke down last month) and whether the current military action has any hope of solving the Hamas problem (whether the problem is defined in terms of politics or in terms of security).

If Bruce Hoffman is correct that because of Israel's dependence on the United States it would be responsive to U.S. pressure--and I believe he is--then there is a long continuum between the extremes represented by the current administration's policy at one end and the straw man of "abandonment" at the other. Debate needs to focus not on the extremes but on those parts along the middle of the continuum where more flexible U.S. policies could help to curb Israeli policies and actions that are inconsistent with U.S. interests and with any chance for peace in the Middle East (and because of the latter, also are inconsistent with the long-run interests of Israelis themselves).

Allies are always both boon and burden, whether you are a great power looking at your friends, or vice versa.

Israel is a staunch ally, but they come at a very high cost, one which we have written off for decades. For general defense issues, counterterrorism, and intelligence matters, the Israelis are hard to beat. But they are staunch allies not because of some cosmic cost - benefit analysis. Our connections are complex and very deep. The ties are political, economic, cultural, and historical. Only our ties with the English speaking countries and some countries in Europe are as dense as our ties to Israel.

Our "loss" in the current Middle East crisis is dependent on whether or not Israel succeeds against Hamas, which appears increasingly likely. Ironically, if we maximize our short term pain and encourage Israel to finish off or severely diminish Hamas, we are likely to benefit more in the long run. Perhaps President Obama is holding his tongue knowing that the Bush administration's tolerance of the invasion might allow him an important leg up in the Middle East peace process. On Jan 21st, he can become "good cop" to Bush's "bad cop."

The world media and the UN will continue in this case to condemn tough Israeli response to Hamas's rocket attacks, unless of course it shows good results. The world media and the UN, of course, found almost nothing to condemn about the over 6,000 rocket and mortar attacks by Hamas on Israel in the past three years. The invasion of Gaza is in one way a punishment for the failure of international peacekeeping and selective inattention on the part of the media.

If Israel is successful, there will be an added bonus: Iran and its friends will take notice and may well adjust their behavior accordingly. They may also stop drinking their own bathwater about how well Hezbollah did in the last war. In the end, Israel will remain asset and liability for the United States, as much as we have been to them over the years.

The incoming Obama Administration does need to take a look at the US Middle East foreign policy. It is the perogative for any incoming group to see that its stamp is placed on how America views the world and its interests. In "realpolitik" terms, Israel remains a bulwark of that policy.

We have a sixty year history of supporting Israel through "thick and thin." Friends and allies are allowed to disagree. Whether the most recent move against Hamas was advisable or not, Israel is hardly a liability to US interests in the Middle East under any circusmtances. It should not be thrown overboard with cuts in aid or backing at the ever increasingly irrelevent United Nations.

The US and international media exaggerate the "anger of the Arab street" against Israel for effect and ratings. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf States, and Egypt remain dependent on us as economic partners and nations with similiar geo-political interests. Libya has sought accord with us And Iraq continues its steps forward -- sometimes stumbling along a long path to democracy. Showing weakness by selling out our friends does nothing to strengthen our hand in an area of the world that worships strength and power.

Al Queda, Hamas, and Hizbollah are a small portion of Middle East interests and are out to get Israel and the United States by ideology. They cannot be placated -- only neutralized and cauterized with consistent political and (occasional) military force. Our support of Israel also sends a message to our "friends" in Tehran that America will not back down no matter how long it takes.

Bottom Line: Israel remains a strong positive for us in the Middle East and we should continue to support it.

Israel is not only an unnecessary and self-made liability for the United States, it is an untreated and spreading cancer on our domestic politics, foreign policy, and national security. America has no genuine national security interests at stake in either Israel or Palestine; if they both disappeared tomorrow the welfare of Americans and the security of their country would not be impacted a lick. The Arab-Israeli religious war is a war that properly belongs solely to Israelis and Arabs; let them fight each other to the death with no interference in favor of either side from the United States. The continued, automatic, and idiotic identification of U.S. national interests as identical with Israel's made by our bipartisan political elite, the media, and those U.S. citizens who prefer Israeli to American security is only earning Americans deeper hatred and more wars with Muslims. There is no question that Israel has every right in the world to militarily defend itself to whatever extent it deems necessary, but neither Israel, the United States, nor any other nation has a "right" to exist. Nation-states survive if they can vanquish their enemies. The democratically elected Israeli govermment is right to try to vanquish Hamas; and the democratically elected Hamas regime has every right to try do the same to Israel. The point to keep squarely in view is that it does not matter to America's security who emerges the winner.

.

It is not possible to "set aside the emotional and religious anchors of the US-Israel alliance." Those are the principal bases of the alliance. Israel’s welfare is a self assigned interest of the United States. That does not make that interest less real, but it renders the interest a "duty" of a spiritual and moral nature rather than the kind of thing that a British PM meant in the 19th century when he supposedly said that "countries do not have friends or enemies. They have interests." That kind of interest confers an advantage militarily, economically, geographically or in some other material way. The US interest in Israel’s welfare does none of those things and it costs a lot of money. The Israelis have been careful to separate "things" into neat groupings. They have operated on the basis that their things are their things and US things are their things. I was the principal officer in the US military intelligence relationship with Israel for many years. That was how the relationship worked. It was not a truly two-sided arrangement. The products of Israeli intelligence are sometimes valuable but often do not reach the standard of the legend concerning them. The reverse is not true. US military operations have not been benefited by the relationship with Israel. Israel does not want to be a military client of the United States. Our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been based in or logistically supported from Israel. Israel has never functioned as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the United States and it does not wish to do so. Aside from providing useful liberty ports for the Sixth Fleet’s sailors and marines, and an occasional venue for small military maneuvers, it is hard to see what Israel does for the US in the military field that is worth the trouble that the relationship causes diplomatically with the surrounding states. Israel does not contribute to the well being of the US economy. In fact, in many high tech fields Israeli companies are competitors of American companies. I will not dwell excessively on the USS Liberty and Pollard incidents. Those events speak for themselves and most Americans have long ago forgiven the offenses and chosen to forget.

No, in the end, the US/Israel alliance is an affair of the heart. Such affairs are not to be analyzed too closely on the basis of mere material interests.

In the seven years since the September 11th 2001 attacks, the canard that U.S. support of Israel incurs the wrath of the Muslim world and thus permanently fixes America in the terrorists’ cross hairs has gained increasing currency. The argument which then follows, is that it is not in America’s strategic interest to support Israel and that by clawing back this support the U.S. will escape much of the hatred and violence to which we are subjected. Seductively simplistic, this premise is also dangerously illusory.

First, there are ample reasons and cause for anti-Americanism worldwide that are completely separate from U.S. support of Israel. Indeed, one perennial feature of international terrorism since 1968 has been that year in and year out the U.S. has virtually always been the number one target of terrorists around the globe. This is a reflection of the global presence of American business and cultural influence, the vast geographical array of overseas U.S. military bases, and the unrivalled power of the American media which ensures that any attack against a U.S. target, especially involving American civilians, is guaranteed to galvanize the attention of the U.S. press and thereby instantly amplify even the hitherto most obscure terrorists themselves and their cause.

The leading causes of terrorism directed against the U.S. historically have in fact had little to do with U.S. support of Israel. Instead, anti-American terrorism has variously been motivated (during the 1960s and 1970s) by America’s military involvement in Indochina; actual or perceived U.S. support of repressive or corrupt regimes (whether in Latin America, the Middle East or elsewhere; from the 1960s to the present); alleged American militarism or interference or influence over domestic affairs (from the 1960s to the present); perceived American economic exploitation (1960s to the present); and, more recently, by the perception that the U.S. is waging a war against Islam under the guise of our war on terror.

Indeed, when Hezbollah blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983 or when the Khobar Barracks in Saudi Arabia were bombed in 1996 the reasons were only tangentially, if even at all, related to U.S. support of Israel. Similarly, the September 11th 2001 attacks, the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, the blowing up of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995 and many other major terrorists attacks on American targets have had little or nothing to do with U.S. support of Israel.

Finally, Iranian antipathy and opprobrium of the U.S. has far less to do with America’s close relations with Israel (despite Ahmadinejad’s rants) than with our role in the 1953 coup that deposed Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, the subsequent installation of Shah Reza Pahlavi, and the blind support that the U.S. provided to the Shah until he was overthrown in 1979.

Second, behind the criticism of American support of Israel is the yearning among some to turn back the clock to September 10th 2001; to what they see as a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity, uncomplicated by the omnipresent threat of terrorism and the asymmetric challenges of non-state adversaries operating on a global canvas. This argument holds that severing or curtailing U.S. support of Israel can magically transport us back to that halcyon era.

The temptation to wind back the clock of history to a more convivial time, however, is among mankind’s most dangerous vanities. The distinguished British economist John Maynard Keynes warned of this folly nearly a century ago in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, his magisterial invective against the Treaty of Versailles. "So far as possible, therefore, it was the policy of France," he presciently observed, "to set the clock back and to undo what, since 1870, the progress of Germany had accomplished." Just as France’s willful ignorance laid the foundations for a still greater future disaster two decades later, America’s longing to return to September 10th 2001 by re-defining our relationship with Israel would likely in fact only more seriously compromise our own security in the long run.

Those arguing to the contrary would do well to remember the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. At the time, Israeli-Palestinian relations—superintended and encouraged by the U.S.—were at their zenith and the prospects of long-term peace between these longstanding antagonists arguably burned brightest. Cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was flourishing, the Palestinian economy was as prosperous as it had ever been and inter-communal violence was at an all-time low. Yet despite this altogether salutary and positive situation, it was precisely at this the time that bin Laden and al Qaeda chose to issue their clarion calls to jihad and then went out and blew up our embassies. It is thus patently obvious that, while U.S. support of Israel admittedly figures in al Qaeda’s profound animus towards America, it is mostly secondary to al Qaeda behind the myriad American sins of supporting and allegedly propping-up so-called apostate/allegedly corrupt regimes in Muslim lands, such as in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Algeria, and elsewhere.

The confrontations between the U.S. with Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan and between India and Pakistan over Kashmir in addition to those in Palestine themselves sufficiently sustain and ensure the continuation of al Qaeda’s struggle. This is not to suggest that resolving the Israeli-Palestine conflict would not have an entirely positive impact on terrorism worldwide as it would certainly remove one of several contentious issues inspiring and motivating anti-American sentiment and violence. But, in and of themselves, neither U.S. support for Israel nor the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are the sole or lone motivating cause for anti-American terrorism and hatred today.

Moreover, in a broader sense, one has to wonder whether there could be any better way of demonstrating to terrorists that their heinous violence and naked threats and blandishments actually work and do affect national policies than to cave in to their demands regarding the cessation of U.S. support of Israel. Like blood to sharks in the water, such a dramatic volte face of 60 years of U.S. foreign policy would only likely embolden terrorists further and set their sights still more ambitiously on changes more profound and new targets both further afield and closer to home.

Hence, in grand strategic terms, the abandonment of Israel would amount to the appeasement of terrorists and terrorism: precisely the outcome that Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran and others are banking upon through the bloodshed, demoralization, and attrition of spirit, will and moral commitment that terrorism and terrorists—and their state-sponsors—always hope to achieve.

It should be emphasized, too, that American’s alliance with Israel actually brings the U.S. a number of tangible benefits. These include:

One, Israel is the only truly stable democracy in the region and the country least likely to have its government forcibly changed by military coup or popular revolution. In this respect, Israel is not only the sole country in the region whose government is most similar to America’s but also is the most reliable and dependable ally in a notoriously unstable part of the world.

Second, Israel’s military is among the most compatible to the U.S. in terms of training, doctrine, equipment and competence thus, in the event it becomes necessary, facilitating close militarily cooperation.

Third, in this respect, as Israel is our most reliable ally in the region, it is also the most significant balancing force in that area of the world against America’s principal declared nemesis, Iran.

Fourth, Israeli intelligence is among the best in the world. Close cooperation between the American intelligence community and its Israeli counterparts provides critical information not only on both state and non-state enemies of the U.S. in the region (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, etc.) but also against actual and potential adversaries elsewhere—particularly with regard to Russia and other countries of the near abroad where Israel has trade and other relations and in Africa and Asia as well, where Israel also has a presence.

Fifth, Israel works with the U.S. to strengthen such important non-Middle East American allies as India and Singapore with respect to military modernization and inter-operability with U.S. forces.

Sixth, Israel’s political, commercial, and intellectual elites remain strongly committed to the U.S. so that the close ties that have long existed between Israel and the U.S. are as solid as they are dependable.

Finally, Israel is far less independent or resilient to U.S. pressure than enemies of this relationship often portray. Because Israel has no other significant strategic allies in the world it is likely to follow America’s dictate and be responsive to U.S. pressures: ensuring that the relationship remains a two-way street.

The Israeli invasion of Gaza has prompted governments, intellectuals and pundits to take to their own battle lines with regard to the decades-old conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. As usual, the Europeans have censured Israel, the moderate Arab states have echoed them (though privately cheering Israel on), the "Arab street" has had its demonstrations, and the press, including the American press, has split along conservative/liberal lines, with the former supporting the Israelis and the latter chiding them. It is noteworthy that Barack Obama's public remarks during his campaign regarding Hamas rocket attacks and potential Israeli retaliation were hardly different from those of George W. Bush, and the President-elect has sent out virtually no signals that his attitude has changed.

Is America simply out of touch with reality? Or with the international community?

There can be little doubt that many states do not hesitate to condemn Israel, but many do so because they anticipate an American veto of any action in the United Nations. That observation applies even to some of the moderate Arab states. They, above all, recognize the reality that while peace between Israel and the Palestinians is certainly a necessary condition for stability in the Middle East, it is not a sufficient condition for that stability. Far from it.

Many Arab governments that are friendly with the United States find themselves under considerable pressure from extremist groups that draw recruits in part by pointing to the weakness of Arab states vis a vis Israel. If Israel were to disappear tomorrow, however, there would be no real diminution of the challenge posed by Islamic Sunni extremists to the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco and Saudi Arabia, among others. Nor would the Gulf States feel any more secure if they alone were left to face the threat from the Mullahs of Tehran.

Were Israel to disappear tomorrow, the Iranian threat to those states, and to Iraq, would still be there. The Syrian threat to Lebanon would still be there. Indeed, Taliban threat to Afghanistan would still be there.

It was not tension with Israel that brought about the Iran-Iraq War. Nor did it cause Iraq to claim Kuwait in the 1960s, or Iran to seize the Gulf islands of Abu Musa and the Tombs in the Seventies. Nor did it prompt the invasion of Kuwait in 1990s.

If Israel is not the cause of all the Middle East's troubles, does it, on the other hand, provide any benefit to the United States? Or is all the giving on the American side? Surely Israel provides important intelligence to Washington, intelligence that otherwise would be far more difficult to obtain from what are euphemistically called "National Technical Means." Israel provides a degree of reassurance to its moderate Arab neighbors that they often acknowledge privately but never publicly. It was Israel, after all, that helped to save the Hashemite regime in 1970, when the Palestinians threatened to overwhelm King Hussein's forces. Israel's 1981 bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor was almost universally condemned--in public. Privately, Saddam's neighbors breathed a huge sigh of relief. As we now know, the Iraqi nuclear program never really recovered. Israel's deterrent capability currently provides a similar degree of reassurance to the Gulf states who share its fear of Iran, and who are America's close allies. In other words, Israel provides certain benefits to America's allies that in some cases America cannot, or will not, provide on its own.

Finally there is Israel's technical prowess. Israel has developed a variety of technologies that it has passed along to the United States. In addition, Israeli equipment is in many of our better known, and some less well known, weapons systems.

None of the foregoing, however, can fully justify the vast aid that the United States provides to Israel on an annual basis. There is more than a little truth to the fact that America aids Israel for reasons that go beyond purely military and intelligence benefits. Yet that aid is a reflection of America's unique relationship to the Jewish state that derives far more from the sympathy of tens of millions of Americans than it does from any lobbying effort undertaken by Jewish groups.To those millions, Israel is a reflection of American values, however these people choose to define those values. Some, like the Evangelical churches, will define them in religious terms. Others will maintain an emotional linkage to a state that remains besieged by enemies who wish nothing less than the extermination of its population.

Yet there is another reason that Israel continues to receive American support. It is simply that, over the decades, American support for Israel has been accepted as a given by the rest of the international community. The leaders of our Arab allies would be the most shocked if America would abandon Israel--after all, if Washington abandoned Israel, how much could they expect from the United States? The moderate regimes would find themselves even more vulnerable to extremists who would see the abandonment of Israel as a victory for their Islamist ideology. In addition, the Arabs would fall over themselves trying to accommodate Iran, which no doubt would claim credit for the new American stance.

Ultimately, America's enemies are her enemies, not Israel's. It is the American way of life that threatens them, not American support for Israel. On the other hand, that support demonstrates American credibility, and commitment, and a sense that it does stand by the values it constantly trumpets: the primacy of democratic values and the right of small nations to exist in freedom and security.

It’s a blank slate. There is no history. God created the Middle East in seven days—starting on January 20, 2009. So who should Obama choose to make America’s key strategic ally in the region? That’s easy—Israel—no question. And here is why.

Look at America’s Interests

The Middle East is once again (harkening back to the days before the Age of Exploration) the center of the world—and its not just about pumping oil. This land is a key lynch-pin in contemporary global maritime trade and world finance. It is hard to imagine recovery from a planet-wide recession without the region’s participation. It is harder still to imagine achieving peace and prosperity in this part of the world without a stable geopolitical situation.

The Near East is also a possible source of transnational terror: a potential font of Islamist death dealers and a new nuclear arms race—developments that would surely threaten the peace and security of the US and its allies.

And look at where the threats come from. Number one on the list of the usual suspects is Iran. There is no question that its quest for nuclear weapons, support for terrorism, and fermenting political violence in Iraq are a threat to regional peace. The neighborhood fears the leaders in Tehran. If Iran builds the bomb, others may feel that they must get nuclear arsenals of their own and then the world would have to sit by terrified—watching a Middle East Mexican stand-off. The world will be even more worried when Tehran puts their "nukes" on long-range missiles that can reach Paris, London, Berlin, and New York.

Next on the most wanted list is al Qaeda, which tried and failed to turn Iraq into the Seventh Circle of Hell, but remains committed to destabilizing and overthrowing legitimate governments throughout the swath of soil between Asia and Africa.

Last on the list (not far behind al Qaeda) are Hezbollah and Hamas. Both are dedicated to the use of terrorism; both anxious to see their own people die and suffer to advance their agendas; both also have worldwide networks used for fund-raising, logistics, and intelligence gathering that could be turned on anyone—including the United States.

Look at the Lineup

If you were going to combat this list of bad guys what regional ally would be best to have on your side? There are three reasons Obama should pick Israel.

First, Israel is a capable ally. It is a regional military power and posses a significant nuclear deterrent of its own. The Israelis routinely provide intelligence, counterterrorism, and logistics support to the United States and there is fruitful scientific-cooperation as well. Israel has more capability and will to act then most of the members of NATO.

Second, there is the "enemy of my enemy" factor. Iran uses Israel as its excuse for wanting a bomb; bullying its neighbors; and promoting terrorism. Israel has every reason to support the US effort to push back against Iran. Also, unlike other regional powers from Jordan to Saudi Arabia to the Gulf states, the Israelis are not cowed into silence at Iran’s belligerence. Likewise, Hamas and Hezbollah, and their sponsors in Tehran, are the chief obstacles to Israel establishing a lasting peace with its neighbors and ending the decades long slaughter of innocents in both Israel and Palestine. At the same time, the last thing Israel would like to see is countries run by the likes of al Qaeda. In short, Israel is a "three-for." There are few countries in the region that share more common cause with the United States.

Third, Israel is an enduring ally. One of the great lessons of the post-Cold War World is that "coalitions of the willing" often wind up being coalitions of the "same." The nations that are with you, are usually always with you. They are the "enduring allies," countries that share trust and confidence, because they share a common worldview and fundamental values of freedom and free markets. Israel is a democracy and a stalwart friend as much as the traditional Anglo-American allies: Britain, Australia, and Canada.

By any measure, Israel measures up as a strategic ally for the U.S. in the 21st century and a force for good in the region.