As we read about federal elected officials who seek to condition aid to Israel and some who threaten to withhold aid to Israel, it is important to remember that this troubling trend is not a new phenomenon — we have seen this playbook used before.
In this month’s installment of “Remember When,” we look back at our issue from Dec. 23, 1955, when an article titled “Nasser Threatens War With Israel; Decision on Arms Request Delayed” ran on the front page.
Following Israel’s raid on Syrian posts in response to provocations and attacks from Syria against Israeli fisherman and police launches in Lake Tiberias, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s president, threatened retaliation against the Jewish state and declared in a letter to United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld and members of the U.N. Security Council “that full-scale military action would be jointly undertaken by his country and Syria in the event of any future incidents.” Calling Israel’s actions a “barbarous attack,” Nasser said that Egypt would “be forced to take matters into her own hands.”
While Nasser’s bluster and warnings about revenge put the entire region on edge, the U.S. State Department waded into the seemingly combustible situation by suggesting that Israel’s arms request to the United States could be delayed as a result of Israel’s military action against Syria.
As the article stated, “It is the opinion of the State Department … that the reprisal raid by Israel was an act in which weapons were employed for offensive uses. Before approving the Israel arms list, or any portion of it, the U.S. Government must be convinced that the American arms will be used for defensive purposes only, the State Department sources said.”
In addition to the United States’ stance, Israel faced criticism by the United Kingdom when its government formally protested Israel’s attack on Syria.
Nearly 70 years later, this sounds like a familiar storyline. When Israel responds to threats and attacks, it is still often the target of condemnation from members of the international community, regardless of the fact that Israel’s military actions are often critical to ensure the safety and survival of the Jewish state.
In addition, there are still instances in which the United States has delayed certain arms shipments to Israel, despite the need to ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative military edge over its enemies.
Furthermore, just last month, we saw a legislative effort by 19 senators to block U.S. weapons shipments to Israel, even though Israel is engaged in battles against multiple enemies, all of whom seek the destruction of the Jewish state.
When it comes to Israel, at times it seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same.
