In a recent interview with Joods Actueel ("Jewish Actuality" - a far-left Jewish news magazine in Belgium), Filip
Israel is disadvantaged by its relationship with America and needs to redefine the terms of association.
Dewinter, leader of the Antwerp faction of Vlaams Belang, the nation's largest political party, the question of Israeli membership in NATO and the EU arose. Contrary to how the Anglophonic media might lead one to assume he would respond - since, after all, they have slandered the party under the misnomer of "far-right neo-Nazism" - Dewinter gave an answer that would no doubt please most Israel supporters. He stated that, while geography ruled out EU membership, the same was not true of NATO, where he would welcome Israeli membership.

This begs the question, though, of what role Israel has in the international order; and in what way it should seek to redefine itself.

Unpopular as it may be to say in the United States, increasingly those on the Israeli Right, for perhaps the first time since the Kach party was disbanded, are suggesting that Israel is disadvantaged by its relationship with America and needs to redefine the terms of association if bilateral relations are to be retained. And, indeed, they have a compelling case.

Historical precedent shows us that land won in a defensive war, as Israel fought in 1967, need not be restored to the losers or be given independence of any sort. Israel made the mistake of not formally annexing the territory at that time, but it did not become a problem until President Jimmy Carter, who has proven himself to be deranged on all matters of Middle Eastern policy, strong-armed the "right-wing" Menachem Begin into surrendering a massive portion of territory to Egypt in the name of peace.

Never mind that four consecutive military defeats would've sufficed as a deterrent against open warfare. Instead, let us ask whether the peace Israel supposedly has with Egypt is of any value. When it so readily facilitates arms smuggling for the fifth-column Palestinian insurgency, and could readily fall to the increasingly powerful domestic Islamist factions, what good did such massive concessions do?

If you answered "paved the way for yet more dangerous land concessions," pat yourself on the back.

Using the return of the Sinai Peninsula as precedent, Bill Clinton was able to compel Yitzchak Rabin - who to that point was not nearly so enthusiastic about displacing hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes to create a new enemy state - to sign the Chamberlain-like Oslo Accords. Rather than rise to crush the violent Muslim threats, as Israel had so often needed to do in decades past, Oslo marked Israel's loss of credibility. It began Israel's formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority and their territorial claims on Israeli land. Even when Palestinian violence prevented the agreement from coming to fruition, Oslo went on to serve as a pretext under which every post-Rabin prime minister has made efforts to displace citizens for the purpose of creating yet another hostile regime in the region. And under the George Bush-backed Sharon government, the very first steps to creating a new jihadist state were taken.

In the more than three years since Israel expelled its own citizens from Gaza, destroying 21 established communities to create a Hamastan where crucifixion is now a legally authorized form of punishment, Israel has suffered the consequences. Those terrorist organizations that seek to destroy it can now more easily arm themselves and have added yet more population centers to the total territory they can rain their rockets upon.

This surrender of land has, of course, done nothing to placate the international community, the United States included, which still refuses to recognize Israel's capital city as Jerusalem. After Costa Rica and El Salvador moved their embassies to Tel Aviv, the international norm of allowing a country to choose its own capital within its territory is globally violated only in the case of Israel. That is but one of many examples of the unequal treatment Israel faces on the world stage.

At best, the US occasionally votes against anti-Israel UN resolutions, usually along side the South Pacific island
Under the George Bush-backed Sharon government, the very first steps to creating a new jihadist state were taken.
nations it heavily subsidizes. In practice, though, this does little other than create the illusion that the US-Israel relationship is vital only to the latter, and that Israel should be grateful for what little it gets.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel, for its part, has always offered military assistance to the United States (which rejects it routinely), and has served as the only trustworthy and powerful American ally in one of the globe's major powder kegs. And, at least under the present system, Israel essentially obeys the suicidal commands that its American master gives it.

So, what is it that Israel gains? Chiefly the benefits are financial and, truth be told, not nearly as vital in the present as they might have been decades ago. Given the global financial recession and the hostile nature of the current American government, the benefits can only shrink, thereby reducing the value of such an alliance for Israel. While mutual technological development, commercial exchange and military cooperation are all part of the bilateral relationship and are worth preserving, they are far less valuable than having the freedom to set its own policy and respond properly to the grave security threats Israel faces.

Until the United States is willing to redefine its relationship with Israel as one between equals, it may be better for Israel to terminate the alliance and begin to more proactively seek out different partners around the globe.