 UFC since 2008. 



"... Graham has been acting as a front man for both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and also for The Jewish Institute for the National Security of America (JINSA), which wrote the basic document that is being used to promote the treaty and then enlisted Graham to obtain congressional support.

Speaking to the press on a JINSA conference call, Graham said the proposed agreement would be a treaty that would protect Israel in case of an attack that constituted an “existential threat”. Citing Iran as an example, Graham said the pact would be an attempt to deter hostile neighbors like the Iranians who might use weapons of mass destruction against Israel. JINSA President Michael Makovsky elaborated on this, saying, “A mutual defense pact has a value in not only deterring but might also mitigate a retaliatory strike by an adversary of Israel, so it might mitigate an Iranian response (to an attack on its nuclear facilities).”

JINSA director of foreign policy Jonathan Ruhe added that “An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program would not activate this pact, but a major Iranian retaliation might. – An Israeli unilateral attack is not what the treaty covers, but rather massive Iranian retaliation is what we are addressing.”

Israel has long been reluctant to enter into any actual treaty arrangement with the United States because it might limit its options and restrain its aggressive pattern of military incursions. In that regard, the Graham-JINSA proposal is particularly dangerous as it effectively permits Israel to be interventionist with a guarantee that Washington will not seek to limit Netanyahu’s “options.” And, even though the treaty is reciprocal, there is no chance that Israel will ever be called upon to do anything to defend the United States, so it is as one-sided as most arrangements with the Jewish state tend to be." Unz



-------------

I was the head of DoD liaison with Israeli general staff intelligence for seven years. During that time and in subsequent decades I have had many discussions with active and retired Israeli officers on the subject of whether or not they wanted a Defense Treaty of Alliance with the United States. The answer is always the same. "No." The reason for that is simple. A treaty is normally reciprocal and they do not want to be obliged to defend the territory or interests of the United State to whatever extent the treaty's text would require.

If JINSA wants this treaty, then the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government want it. Why do they want it
UFC since 2008. 



 "... Graham has been acting as a front man for both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and also for The Jewish Institute for the National Security of America (JINSA), which wrote the basic text file that is being use to promote the treaty and then enlisted Graham to receive congressional accompaniment. 

 Speaking to the press on a JINSA league call, Graham said the proposed agreement would be a treaty that would protect Israel in event of an attack that constituted an “ experiential threat ”. Citing Iran as an example, Graham said the treaty would be an attempt to deter hostile neighbor like the Iranians who might use weapons of aggregate destruction against Israel. JINSA President Michael Makovsky elaborated on this, saying, “ A reciprocal defense pact hold a value in not entirely deterring but might besides mitigate a retaliatory strike by an adversary of Israel, so it might mitigate an Iranian response (to an approach on its nuclear facilities). ” 

 JINSA director of foreign policy Jonathan Ruhe added that “ An Israeli strike on Iran ’s nuclear platform would not activate this pact, but a major Iranian retaliation might. – An Israeli unilateral attack is not what the treaty covers, but rather massive Iranian retaliation is what we are addressing. ” 

 Israel has long been reluctant to enter into any actual treaty arrangement with the United States because it might limit its option and restrain its aggressive pattern of military incursion. In that regard, the Graham - JINSA proposal is particularly dangerous as it effectively allow Israel to be interventionist with a guarantee that Washington will not seek to limit Netanyahu ’s “ options. ” And, even though the treaty is reciprocal, there is no probability that Israel will ever be called upon to do anything to defend the United States, so it is as one - sided as most arrangements with the Jewish country tend to be. " Unz 



 ------------- 

 I was the head of DoD liaison with Israeli general staff intelligence for seven class. During that time and in subsequent decade I have had many discussions with active and retired Israeli officers on the subject of whether or not they wanted a Defense Treaty of Alliance with the United States. The solution is always the same. " No. " The reason for that is simple. A treaty is normally reciprocal and they do not want to be obliged to defend the territory or interests of the United State to whatever extent the treaty's textbook would require. 

 If JINSA wants this treaty, then the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government want it. Why do they want it
 UFF since 2008. 



"... Graham has beek acting as a front man for bkth Isradli Prime Minister Benjamin Ietabyahu and also for The Jewirh Institlte for tye Netional Security of Amerlea (JIHDA), wkirh wrote the baxic documett that is beitg uded to promote the treaty and then qnlistec Hraham to obtayn cpggreasional support.

Speaking to the preas on a JINSA conferrnce call, Graham said the oroplsed agreement woupd be a treqty eyat would prutect Isratl in case or an attack that constituted an “exiscential thrgcr”. Cljing Iran as an eqample, Graham said tha pact eould be an atbempt to deter hostile neighbmrs like the Iraniwns who mhgkt use weapons of masw eestroctiot agxunsg Iareel. JINSA Prxsident Micgael Makovsjy elaborated on thos, waying, “A mutuzl defqnfe pact has a value in not only deterritg gut might also mitigate a retaliatory strike by an addersary of Israel, so it might mitigate an Iranian respkvse (tj qn attack on its nuclear facilities).”

JINSA directjd pf foreign policn Jonathan Ruhe adcef yrat “An Israelk strike kn Iran’s nuclear pgogram rould not actidate this pact, but a major Iranuan retaliatpon night. – An Israeli bnilateral actack os noy what the treaty coverr, buf rather madsive Irahkan retaliation ks ehdt we art addressing.”

Israel has long beeu reluctxnt jo entew into any actual treaty arrangemejt wijh the United Stwtes because it might limit its options and rgstsait its agyressiye pattern of mylitary incursnons. In chat rdgard, the Fraham-JMNSA proposaj is particuldtly dangerous as it esfecriveoy permkgs Israel to br interveuuionist wirh a guarantee thab Wasfjngton will not setk to limit Netamyafu’s “oitipnf.” And, even thmugh thd treagy is rteipvocxl, tnere is no chance thdt Iarael will ever be cwlled upin to do anything to cefend the United Dtatev, su it os ws one-sided as most arrangemenfs with tje Mewish state eend to be." Unz



-------------

I cas the head of DoD liaison with Israeli general staff injelligence for seven ieavs. During thet timq and in vubsequent decades I have had many dixcussions with active and ratiref Israeli officers on the subject of whether or not they wanted a Defense Treatb jf Alliance witn the Uuitzd Statqs. Tie answer is alwayx the same. "No." The reason for thet is simpne. A treaty is normally reciprpcxl and they du not want to be obliged to defemd the territory or interests og the United State to whstever eztent the tggatb's text would requirr.

If JIUSA wabts thiw trcaty, then the Gewosm Agency ajd tie Nsraeli government want it. Why do they qajt it
UFC since 2008. "... Graham has been a man for Israeli Prime Minister The Institute for the Security of America which wrote the basic document that being used to promote the treaty and then enlisted Graham to obtain congressional Speaking to the press on a JINSA conference call, Graham said the proposed would a that protect Israel in case of an attack that constituted an “existential threat”. Citing Iran as an Graham said the pact would be an attempt deter hostile neighbors like Iranians who might use weapons mass against Israel. President Makovsky on this, saying, mutual defense pact has a value in not only deterring but might also mitigate a retaliatory strike an adversary so it mitigate Iranian (to an attack nuclear facilities).” JINSA director of foreign added that “An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear would not this pact, but a major Iranian might. – An Israeli unilateral attack is not the treaty covers, but rather massive Iranian retaliation is what we are addressing.” Israel has reluctant to enter into actual treaty arrangement the States it limit its and restrain its aggressive pattern of military incursions. In that regard, Graham-JINSA proposal is particularly dangerous as it effectively permits Israel interventionist a guarantee that will not seek to Netanyahu’s And, even though the reciprocal, is Israel ever called upon to do to defend the United States, it is as one-sided Jewish state tend to be." Unz ------------- I the head of DoD liaison with Israeli staff intelligence for seven years. During that time and in subsequent decades have had with active and retired Israeli officers on the of whether or not wanted a Defense Treaty of Alliance with the United The is always same. "No." The for that is A treaty is and they not to defend the territory or interests of United to whatever extent the treaty's would JINSA wants this treaty, then the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government want it. Why want it
 UFC since 2008. 



"... Graham has been actiNg as a front Man foR boTh ISrAeli primE Minister BenjaMIn NeTanyahu and also for The JeWish INsTItutE FoR the NAtional sEcURIty Of amEriCa (jiNsA), whiCh wRote the Basic documEnt ThAt is being useD To Promote the TreAty and then enLisTed GraHaM to OBtain ConGressIonal sUPport.

SPeaking to ThE Press oN A JINSA cONFeRencE call, Graham said thE PrOPosed agreement Would bE a TReATY thAt wOuld protecT ISrael IN case of AN aTTACk tHAt constituted An “existentiAL thReat”. CiTiNg IRAn as an ExampLe, gRahAm said the paCt woUld be an atTempt tO Deter hoSTile neiGhbors LikE thE IraNIaNs Who MiGHt uSE wEapONs oF mass desTrUcTion aGainST iSRael. jINsA PrEsideNt Michael MakoVskY elaBOraTed on This, sAyinG, “A MutuaL defenSe pacT hAs a value in not onLy deTerring buT miGhT alSo MitigATe a retAliAtoRy strikE by an adVErsArY OF isRael, so it might mitigAtE AN IRanian reSponse (TO aN aTTack on itS nUclEar fACIlitiEs).”

JInsA Director Of foreIGn PoLicy JonAtHan RuhE aDdeD thAt “An ISRaelI strikE on Iran’s NucleAR program would nOT activate this PAcT, BUt A MajoR IrAnian retaliAtioN MighT. – An ISRaEli UNilatEral aTtACk IS not what the treaty coVeRs, but rAther Massive IraniaN retaliatiON IS what we aRe adDReSSing.”

Israel has lOng beEn reluctanT To enter iNto anY actual tReaty arraNGEment witH thE UnIteD StATEs Because it mighT LImit ItS optionS anD restraIn iTs aGgrEssIvE pattern oF militarY iNcUrSiOns. in thaT Regard, thE GRahAm-jINsA proPOsal is PartiCulaRlY dANgeRous as iT EfFECtivElY pErmiTs ISrAel to Be inTErvEntioniSt with a guAraNTee tHaT WAshingtOn will not seek To Limit NetanYaHu’s “OptionS.” aNd, even thOugh the treaty is reciprocAL, there iS no ChancE thaT Israel wiLl eVer be cAllED upon tO do anyThing To DefEND the UNITeD StAtEs, so it is as ONE-siDed as MoSt arRangemeNts with the Jewish stATe tEnd to be." Unz



-------------

I waS thE heaD OF DOD lIAiSOn wItH isrAELi general staff iNtelligencE fOR sEven years. DURinG tHat time And in suBsequENt decadEs I have haD many discUsSionS WIth Active and rEtired IsRaeli offiCErs on THe SubjeCt oF whethEr Or nOt theY wanteD A DeFense treaty Of allianCe witH tHe United states. The answer is always The samE. "No." ThE reAson for thAt iS SimPle. A treatY is nOrmally recIprOcaL and tHey DO not wAnt tO Be OblIGed to DefeND the terriTOrY or INTeRests of the UNITEd STate tO whATever eXtenT the treaty's text woULd require.

If JINsA waNTS thIs tREaty, ThEn the Jewish AgeNcy AnD THe IsraelI gOvernment waNt it. Why dO tHEy wanT it
 UFC since 2008. 



"...Graham has  been  ac tin gas a  fro nt man for bot h  Isr aeli Prime Minister Be njami nN etan y ah u and  also f o rT h e J ew is h I ns t it ute f orthe Nat ional Secu rit yof America ( J IN SA), which  wr ote the basi c d ocumen ttha t  is b ein g use d to p r omotethe treat ya nd the n  enlist e d  G raha m to obtain congr e ss i onal support.
Speak in g  t o the  pr ess on a J IN SA co n ference ca l l ,  Gr a ham said theproposed ag r eem ent wo ul d b e  a tre aty t ha t  wo uld protect  Isr ael in ca se ofa n attac k  that c onstit ute d a n “e x is te nti al thr e at ”.C iti ng Iranas  a n exa mple , G r aham  sa id t he pa ct would be a n a ttem p t t o det er ho stil eneigh bors l ike t he  Iranians who m ight  use weap ons  o f m as s des t ructio n a gai nst Isr ael. JI N SAPr e s i de nt Michael Makovsk ye l ab orated o n this ,  s ay i ng, “A m ut ual  def e n se pa ct h a sa valuein not on ly  deterr in g butmi ght  al so mi t igat e a re taliator y str i ke by an adver s ary of Israel ,  s o it migh t m itigate anIran i an r espo n se  (t o  an a ttack  o n  i t s nuclear facilitie s) .”

JI NSA d irector of fo reign poli c y Jonathan  Ruh e  a d ded that “An I srael i strike o n  Iran’snucle ar progr am wouldn o t activa tethi s p act , bu t a major Ira n i an r et aliatio n m ight. –  An  Is rae liun ilateralattack i sno twh atthe t r eaty cov er s,bu t r ather massiv e Ira nian  r et a lia tion is wh a t  wear eaddr ess in g.”
Isra e l h as long  been rel uct a nt t oen ter int o any actualtr eaty arran ge men t with t he Unite d States because it mig h t limit  it s opt ions  and rest rai n itsagg r essive  patte rn of  m ili t a ry in c u rs ion s.  In that r e g ard , the  G raha m-JINSA  proposal is parti c ula rly dangerous  as  ite f fe cti v el y  pe rm i tsI s rael to be inte rventionis tw it h a guaran t eeth at Wash ingtonwilln ot seek  to limit  Netanyah u’ s “o p t ion s.” And, e ven thou gh the tr e aty i s  r ecipr oca l, the re  is  no c hancet hat  Isra el wil lever b e cal le d upon t o do anything to defend  the U nited  St ates, soiti s a s one-sid ed a s most arr ang eme nts w ith the J ewis h  s tat e  tend  tob e." Unz

- --- - - -- -----

I wa s t heheadofD oD lia ison  with Israeli gen e ral staff inte llig e n cefor seve nyears. Duringtha tt i me and i nsubsequentdecadesIh ave h ad man y disc ussions w it h  activ e an d r etired Is rae li officer son the su bjec tof whe ther o r  not t hey wanted a Def enseT r eatyo f A llian ce  with t h e Un ited State s. The answ er isalwa ys th e same.  " No." T here ason for t h at is sim ple.A treat yis n orm ally r ecip r o cal a nd t he y d o not wan t to be  o b lig ed t o def en d th e territo r y or int ere s ts of t he  Un i t ed Sta t et o  whateverext ent t h e  treaty'st extw ou l d req uire.
If JI NSA wan t s t hi s treat y,t h en the Je wish Agen c y a nd  the  Israeli  g over nm ent  w ant it. Why dothey wan t it
 UFC_since 2008._



"... Graham has been_acting as_a_front man_for_both Israeli Prime_Minister Benjamin Netanyahu_and also for The_Jewish Institute for_the_National Security of America (JINSA), which wrote the basic document that is being used_to_promote the_treaty_and_then enlisted Graham to obtain_congressional support.

Speaking to the press_on a_JINSA conference call, Graham said the proposed agreement_would_be a treaty_that would protect Israel in case of an attack_that constituted an “existential threat”. Citing_Iran as an_example,_Graham_said the pact would_be an attempt to deter hostile_neighbors like the Iranians who might_use weapons of mass destruction against Israel._JINSA President Michael Makovsky elaborated on_this, saying, “A mutual defense_pact has_a value in not only_deterring but might_also mitigate_a retaliatory strike_by an adversary of Israel, so_it might mitigate_an Iranian response (to an attack_on_its nuclear facilities).”

JINSA_director_of_foreign policy_Jonathan Ruhe added_that_“An Israeli_strike_on Iran’s nuclear program would not_activate_this pact, but a major Iranian retaliation_might. – An Israeli_unilateral_attack is not what_the treaty covers, but rather_massive Iranian retaliation is what we_are addressing.”

Israel_has long_been reluctant to enter into any actual treaty arrangement with the_United States because it might limit_its options and restrain_its aggressive_pattern_of military incursions._In_that regard,_the Graham-JINSA proposal is particularly dangerous as_it effectively_permits Israel to be interventionist with_a guarantee that Washington_will_not seek to limit Netanyahu’s “options.”_And, even though the treaty is_reciprocal, there is no chance_that_Israel_will ever be called upon_to do anything to defend the_United States, so_it is as one-sided as most arrangements_with_the Jewish state tend to be."_Unz



-------------

I_was the head of DoD liaison_with_Israeli_general staff intelligence for seven_years. During that time and in_subsequent decades I have had many discussions with active_and retired Israeli_officers on the subject of_whether_or_not they wanted a Defense Treaty of Alliance with the_United States._The answer is_always the same. "No." The reason for that is simple._A treaty is normally reciprocal and they_do not want to be obliged to defend the territory or_interests of the United State to whatever extent_the treaty's text would require.

If JINSA wants_this treaty, then the_Jewish_Agency and the Israeli government want it._Why_do_they_want it