State of the Union

Presidential Power and Mormon Politics

Beginning to know

By Scott McConnell • February 20, 2009, 11:27 AM

A phrase you hear often from those advocating a fairer policy on Israel/ Palestine is “If Americans only knew.” One American journalist who has become a full time advocate has adopted it to define her organization.

Well, Americans are at long last beginning to know. I suspect a lot of congressmen and women will be talking in the next few weeks to their colleagues Brian Baird (D-WA ) and Keith Ellison (D- Minn.) who have just returned from a courageous trip to Gaza . Baird described the physical destruction and human suffering as “staggering.” He didn’t have to dwell on the fact that the exercise in brutalizing a civilian population was accomplished with the most advanced American weapons.

Not every American can travel to Israel-Palestine to see for himself. But the conversation about what goes on there and America’s role in it is beginning to open up, after way too many years. I would put two Congressmen independently visiting Gaza and talking about it afterwards on a par with Bob Simon’s path-breaking Sixty Minutes segment. The American conversation is beginning to move, at long last.

Posted in Foreign policy, Uncategorized.

37 Responses to Beginning to know

Bill Pearlman says:

February 20, 2009 at 12:33 pm

At the risk of sounding repetitive I ask again. Would you place any demands on the Arabs in general, and Hamas in particular. Anything at all. Basically what your saying here is that Israel has NO right of self defense, none. And If you allow a Hamas organization on the west bank ridge line, allied with Iran, Then the whole coastal area in untenable. And there is nothing that Israel can do about that the TAC wouldn’t object too. Where am I wrong Scott?
WRW says:

February 20, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Bill Pearlman, Don Quixote to strawmen everywhere!
Bill Pearlman says:

February 20, 2009 at 5:25 pm

All I’m saying is that for a Jewish conservative it is very difficult to have a magazine called the American Conservative have article after article backing an organization like Hamas where “Kill the Jew” is written into the charter. And where Israel is portrayed has a satanic force. And where American Jews are portrayed has a 5th column. Very difficult.
MattSwartz says:

February 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Bill,
I’m not going to address any of the strawmen in your post, but I am curious about why you think that a real, sustainable, secure Palestinian state would ally so closely with Iran.

I often hear defenders of Israeli policy say, and I believe, that the Palestinians know that they’re being manipulated by existing Muslim powers in the middle east. They know that they are not treated as equals by the Arabs (or the Persians), but are tolerated for their symbolic value and given symbolic charity. If they actually got out from under Israel’s thumb, wouldn’t they be more likely to side with powers outside the region just to make a point about independence?

I can imagine them linking up with the most secular Muslim state in the world (Turkey) or cashing in on their goodwill in Western Europe long before they become an Iranian satellite.
Thomas O. Meehan says:

February 20, 2009 at 7:58 pm

I missed the articles endorsing Hamas. Are they in the back issues?
MattSwartz says:

February 20, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Yeah, there’s a ton of them on the website actually. Just go to the search function on the toolbar up top and type in “Patrick B”.

I forget his last name, but he writes a regular column here, and pretty much endorses Hamas in every one. His Christmas greeting to al Quaeda from the spring of 03 was even more shocking, actually. I guess that’s just his thing…
Greg Panfile says:

February 21, 2009 at 7:52 am

Obviously someone needs to spell things out for Bill, I’ll volunteer… first of all, some people do form a fifth column in America, starting with the neocons who wrote up the imperial plan for Netanyahu and sold it to Cheney and Rumsfeld… they don’t represent all Jews or all American Jews but they are Jewish Americans who prioritize their view of Israel over any view of what is good for this country… second, if US backing of Israel is based on that country holding the moral high ground, then escalating the cycle of atrocity is not in Israel’s interest, however fulfilling it is emotionally in the short term… third, dealing with insurgencies and liberation movements, however bizarre and atrocious, by first- or second- or third-generation warfare only succeeds if you go all the way to slavery or genocide… stop short of that, and the terrorists win by not losing… what is needed is to break the cycle of atrocity, by separating forces, and by stopping the cycle whereby Israeli attacks undermine any Palestinian ability to organize in a way that leads to successful negotiations… at this point that will require outside intervention, something from the Arab League and/or the UN, and a change of approach in the United States, led by Jewish and other people who no longer take an unreflective Likud line… and the notion that a nuclear Iran is some cause for panic is ridiculous and flawed on its face, as it was in the case of the Russians and Chinese and even the North Koreans… mere possession of those weapons has only a deterrent and status effect, because there is no ‘other’ type of person or regime who will make a first strike on another nuclear power and render itself, at best, able to rule only over a rural country full of mutants and radioactive slag, devoid of cities, monuments, and holy places… this is the reality, Bill, that you need to engage with, rather than spouting those emotionalist and extreme pronouncements that have no basis in fact.
Bill Pearlman says:

February 21, 2009 at 8:49 am

Matt, look at this from the view point of the average Israeli man in the street vs. a guy like Scott McConnell. Israel pulls back from south Lebanon and Gaza. Every last inch. But all that comes in return are attacks. Now your saying lets pull all the Jews out from the west bank, including Jerusalem. Tear apart the fabric of the country. Put Jewish religious sites under Arab sovreignty. And in return will come attacks. The evidence shows that. And publications like the TAC say you can’t do anything about it. And I haven’t even got to the “right of return” issue. Hamas and Hezbollah are Iranian proxies. I’m looking at what is, not what I’d like things to be.
KXB says:

February 21, 2009 at 10:27 am

In Bill’s world, Hamas’ words can induce panic in Israelis, but Israeli weaponry killing over 1,000 Palestinians should induce nothing but obedience from the Palestinians and silence from the Americans.
Bill Pearlman says:

February 21, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Just give me one article, just one. Where the boys from Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t just a bunch of happy go lucky lads skipping through the fields and where the Jews aren’t disciples of the devil. Just one.
Slow says:

February 21, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Give me a single article, just one, where Hamas and Hezbollah ARE just a bunch of happy go lucky lads skipping through the fields and Jews are the disciples of the devil and maybe I’ll consider bothering to take you up on your challenge despite your ridiculousness.
Bill Pearlman says:

February 21, 2009 at 5:24 pm

I direct you to article 7 of the Hamas charter. Perhaps you don’t have the mental capacity to retain articles. Just a thought.
KXB says:

February 21, 2009 at 7:02 pm

Evidently, Bill requires the proving of a negative. Meanwhile, Japan has to learn to live with a nuclear China and North Korea. India has to learn to live with a nuclear China and Pakistan. But the Israelis absolutely cannot live next to a Palestinian state, where they enjoy a kill ratio of over 100 to 1.
Bill Pearlman says:

February 21, 2009 at 8:45 pm

Big difference, China doesn’t threaten Japan with a 2nd holocaust nor India. Your talking about a hamas run entity that for example can shut down Israel’s commercial airport. And in the eyes of you , KXB, Israel wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. Where am I wrong.
KXB says:

February 21, 2009 at 9:42 pm

You are wrong, Bill, because in international relations words really matter for naught. Capability matters first. China does not have to threaten Japan – having nuclear weapons is enough. But China keeps those moves in check because of Japan’s alliance with the nuclear-armed U.S.

Right now, no Arab body whether Hamas, Hezbollah, or the any of the Arab states has the ability now or in the future to threaten Israel’s existence. So, while Hamas can make claims about eliminating Israel, it is empty bluster. Hamas has taken fewer Israeli lives than the Latin Kings have in Chicago.

It is also a bit hard to take Israel’s paranoia seriously, given that they acted as midwife to Hamas in the late 1970′s and 1980′s, by allowing their predecessor, the Islamic Brotherhood, to gain a toehold in the Occupied Territories, even though Egypt warned them that it was making a huge mistake. But, since Israel adopted their British predecessor’s divide and conquer strategy, hoping that Islamic revivalism in the territories would lessen support for the secular Arafat, they disregarded Cairo’s warnings.

And now, Israel keeps turning to the U.S. to provide it diplomatic cover while they decimate every square inch of Gaza, and grab more of the West Bank, as recently as last week. And yet, Israel takes these steps, and expects that nothing bad will happen cause Uncle Sam has bailed them out so many times in the past.
Thomas O. Meehan says:

February 21, 2009 at 10:41 pm

MattSwartz. If by ” sort of endorsing” you mean Pat Buchanan’s noticing that Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians and that Arabs are human beings, I guess he did.

Bill Pearlman. Your difficulty stems from the fact that the center of your concern is Jerusalem and ours just isn’t. About 2% of the American public is Jewish. And that is a declining percentage. Please excuse the rest of us if we fail to obsess over the doings of your co-religionists on the other side of the world.
Slow says:

February 21, 2009 at 11:01 pm

Bill, I was talking about an article on this site, not the Hamas charter. If you think TAC endorses the Hamas charter, show me where they do so.
Slow says:

February 21, 2009 at 11:02 pm

Bill, show me where TAC endorses the Hamas Charter.
Bill Pearlman says:

February 22, 2009 at 9:10 am

Ok, lets talk about capability. Hamas has the ability through rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and other terrorist attacks to make life untenable for jews in Israel. And again, the TAC leadership and its readership think that this is ok. And Israel can’t do anything about it. Second, Iran will get the bomb. Without question. Your talking about a culture where martyrdom is elevated to the highest level. When The rest of the countries engage in a nuclear arms race and the entire region is on a hair trigger alert, well what then. I know that Obama is the messiah but what if he isn’t.
Jack Tracey says:

February 22, 2009 at 5:01 pm

So, Israel is successful militarily over its neighbors. It is aided by US funding and weaponry. Supporting Israel while it defeats its neighbors makes their neighbors think of us as an enemy, too. One opinion is that US policy-makers who support Israel without demanding that they act in our interest do so out of ideologically biased and possibly treasonous motives, because its neighbors are now trying to kill us. An opposing opinion is that Israel is a natural US ally due to its representative government and western cultural ties, so we must take responsibility for its survival.

This all raises a lot of questions for me. Would there be less criticism if it looked like Hamas might actually fulfill its charter? Is moral condemnation the inevitable result of success in the cut throat world of man? What if we completely withdrew official support from all regimes in the region and maintained only non-governmental ties with them? What do we have to gain by being officially involved in this mess?
Bill Pearlman says:

February 22, 2009 at 6:09 pm

Jack, the reason we’re in the middle east is oil, everybody knows that. And that’s the only reason. And if the Arabs hadn’t had the dumb luck to be sitting on a quarter of the worlds oil reserves The Palestinians wouldn’t even be a memory at this point. ( actually palestinians meant Jews before 1948 but that’s a whole other conversation ) It’s not possible to withdraw to fortress America. You couldn’t do that in 1941 and you can’t do it now. I think that the United States stands for something, something good. And we should be on the side of the good guys. South Korea vs. North Korea, We were with Nato vs. the Soviet Union. And we should be with Israel vs. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. The same way that the Czechs should have been backed up in 1938 instead of sold out. Or frankly the Poles after the war. And yes, while I was too young for it I think that Vietnam was a noble effort with the best of intentions. Now, the TAC and its readership says throw Israel over the side back Islamic fundamentalists. Two things that you should all think about. One, betraying a long time ally is wrong, Always has been and always will be. Two, if you back Israel into a corner with no way out what do you think is going to happen. It’s not going to be good. There going to react the same way we would. And it’s not going to be yeah, time for the 2nd holocaust.
TomB says:

February 22, 2009 at 8:43 pm

Bill Pearlman wrote:

“One, betraying a long time ally is wrong.”

Amazingly revealing—and offensive—mindset: If for whatever reason we don’t continue to support everything Israel does we get it feeling “betrayed.” Not gratified for all we’ve done for it so far, no. All those billions, all those loan guarantees, all those emergency arms shipments such as the ones saving Israel’s very ass in ’73, all the diplomatic support and cover and etc. we’ve provided it since its very inception, all the hatred and costs we’ve incurred as a result such as what OPEC did to us in the Seventies and, to a degree at least, 9/11 ….

No, incurrring all that was our *duty* apparently. (Despite getting bupkis in return.) And thus our failure to continue to so act ad infinitum would be a “betrayal.”

Is there any stronger argument possible supporting the idea that the U.S. should remove itself (and its money) as far as possible from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

If after all this is what we get from the ones over there who we have so extravagantly been *favoring,* the only basis that I can see left for the argument that we should continue trying to do anything for anyone over there is simple masochism.

Cheers,
Thomas O. Meehan says:

February 22, 2009 at 10:17 pm

TomB. I couldn’t agree more. It’s a useless exchange. It’s all about one’s loyalties, and Bill’s is to another country. The incongruity of his constantly shilling for Israel on an American Paleoconservative blog needn’t detain us any longer.
Dennis Dale says:

February 23, 2009 at 12:17 am

I have a theory: Bill Pearlman is not a person, but some sort of viral software that has ben set loose on the internet.

Once initiated it needs no further human guidance. Seeking out certain oft-appearing words on the internet, in this case Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc, it assembles and combines from its own limited database various platitudes and cliches, crafting them into technically sensible but odd-sounding phrases. Perhaps it’s an escaped AI experiment.

Note the repitition of certain phrases, such as “happy-go lucky lads of Hezbollah and Hamas” (don’t tell me this “guy” thinks this is such a great line he’s used it at least three times, by my count, in the same forum). The rudimentary diction (“your” for “you’re”, for example).

After some quick calculations I’ve determined BillBot’s exponential rate of increase will, in two to three months, place him in 100% of all comment threads pertaining to Israel and Palestine, barring an internet-wide coding effort to thwart him. This is unlikely. There’s no stopping “him” now. BillBot is no mere man; BillBot is as a force of nature. I, for one, welcome the coming rule of BillBot.
Jack Tracey says:

February 23, 2009 at 6:56 am

Mr Dale,
That was one of the funniest comments I’ve ever seen on this site. I hope after all the heated debate, Bill gets a laugh, too. (I’m imagining a tinny electronic laugh – somewhere between Stephen Hawking and Bender.)
Philip Giraldi says:

February 23, 2009 at 7:16 am

Bill Pearlman is a bit like a rottweiler (sorry, that’s a German dog) who responds to certain key word commands. If you use the word Palestinian without a derogatory adjective preceding it, he will automatically write that you support terrorism, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Bill apparently enjoys blogging as a form of therapy in which he can vent his spleen against anyone who criticizes the country that is closest to his heart, Israel. So why does he live in New York? Beats me. If you google him you will discover that he was a nasty presence on Phil Weiss’s webite back in 2007, specializing in unpleasant ad hominem attacks.
Bill Pearlman says:

February 23, 2009 at 12:11 pm

Have I insulted anybody here. No, just trying to counteract the pro-hamas tilt that reigns here. But if that is too much for you guys. So be it.
TomB says:

February 23, 2009 at 2:10 pm

After re-reading my comment whacking Bill in the spirit of comprehensiveness and friendliness I would like to add that I don’t think most Israelis are ungrateful, nor possibly even Bill. His perhaps unintentional phraseology just got me a bit, although I think my point still stands: Everyone who has reached a certain age has seen conflicts where no matter what you do, no matter now fair you try to be, or even no matter how honest you try to be about which side you favor, you are better off staying far far away.

I’d also be interested in pushing the point Bill originally made a bit which seems to me to have some facial validity to it but which nobody really responded to. I think I know why it’s not valid in the final analysis, but I’d like to see other people’s arguments why not (or indeed even why) first:

That is, to paraphrase Bill a bit, what about that point concerning Israel withdrawing from the West Bank and then *still* being subject to the kind of attacks it has been subject to all these years? Does anyone really believe they would just suddenly stop? Really? That there wouldn’t continue to be a significant faction of Palestinians that then felt that “aha, *now’s* the time to start moving to reclaim what we lost in ’47-48 too…”?

C’mon.

And everyone also knows damn well the fickleness of the world too. Sure *today* is says that “if you just withdraw from those territories of *course* you’d be justified to do whatever tomorrow to protect yourself/Israel proper.” But then, when the time comes, gee, suddenly the world changes it’s mind and says “oh no, sorry, now we *still* don’t like you and too bad so sad you are still getting attacked.” Or, even worse “now we want to talk about the injustice of the establishment of you/Israel proper,

E.g., what American would trade any territory it occupied for the promises of the world? Yeah, right, just like all the U.N. promises to stop genocide, say, and then it’s utter spinelessness at sheltering a few hundred lousy Rwandans even when the resources to do so were right bloody there.

I raise this because I think this may be the thinking—or rationalization at least—of a good many of even the most moderate Israelis, and thus may be a critical aspect of why they have taken the position they have concerning those damned settlements.

Comments anyone? Does anyone really believe that poof, if Israel gave back those territories that milk and honey and not rockets would be traversing that border between the new Palestinian state and Israel?

Cheers,
Thomas O. Meehan says:

February 23, 2009 at 4:13 pm

It’s all beside the point. Neither the Arabs or the Israelis are willing to compromise or live with each other in good faith. The settlements have gone ahead as a a means to make a reversion of the 1967 borders impossible. The Arabs can never be counted upon to not resort to violence. A great many of the Jewish settlers come from overseas, especially America. These people have chosen to place themselves in conflict. The majority of Jews living in Israel are people, or descendants of people who moved there knowing that they were living on contested land.

It’s true that Israel removed itself from Gaza. But Israel also closed the boarders of Gaza punishing the whole population for voting for Hamas. They followed up by violating the cease fire by attacking Hamas smuggling tunnels and killing about six Hamas gunmen. Israel has mastered the methodology of provoking the Arabs. The Arabs for their part are unreasonable knuckleheads who play into their hands at every turn.

America simply has no strategic interest in this tragedy. Israel has no oil to sell and is no real ally. So why do we keep wasting our time agonizing over this endless sordid struggle. Israel is no friend and is not worth the life of a single American. Bill and people like him have one goal. Instead of endlessly debating his “points” we need to ask. Are his goal ours?
Bill Pearlman says:

February 23, 2009 at 4:21 pm

Tom, I appreciate the comment. And you articulated my concerns way better than I ever did. And never did I want to leave the impression that the United States has been anything but stalwart when it comes to Israel. And I’m interested in the feedback. Let me give you one hypothetical. If you go to Israel you’d be amazed at how small the distances are. It would be extremely easy for hamas rockets to shut down Ben Gurion airport if they were situated on the west bank ridge line. What would the TAC and its readership consider an appropriate response. What if suicide bombers hit downtown Tel Aviv, What could Israel do that a guy like Phil Giraldi would deem ok. Serious questions.
Jack Tracey says:

February 23, 2009 at 5:16 pm

I have to confess to being a bit of semitophile when it comes to Israel. (Leon Uris: the most effective katsa ever.) That being said, I would not act as an agent for Israel nor would I ask my country to act in support (other than moral support) of the STATE of Israel. Best of luck to the Israeli Jews, but America has no official interest in the Middle East other than trade and diplomacy with all nations there. The STATE of Israel is just as prone as any other STATE to abuse and manipulation of its people and other peoples. So, too, is the STATE of Palestine. Whatever the official status of their territory, the Palestinians are governed by a bunch of crooks and radicals.

If you personally want private ties through volunteering or commercial efforts with either party, go for it, but I and other citizens are revoking the US federal government’s authorization to intercede. I’ve known a number of American Jews that have served in the Israeli army. If you want to help one side win, go ahead and join up. Too old to fight? There are plenty of other ways to volunteer. Want to arm one side or the other to the teeth? There are plenty of fortunes to be made in the black market for weapons.

Just leave me out of it!
MattSwartz says:

February 23, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Yeah, there’s a ton of them on the website actually. Just go to the search function on the toolbar up top and type in “Patrick B”.

I forget his last name, but he writes a regular column here, and pretty much endorses Hamas in every one. His Christmas greeting to al Quaeda from the spring of 03 was even more shocking, actually. I guess that’s just his thing…

Let me be clear.

This was my (clumsy) attempt at sarcasm. Pat Buchanan, the founder of this magazine, is as unfriendly to terrorism and Sharia-creep as anyone I can think of. It’s just a question of how to combat it, and bleeding our nation dry in defense of a foreign country with human rights issues isn’t the way to do it..
TomB says:

February 23, 2009 at 11:19 pm

Bill Pearlman wrote:

“Let me give you one hypothetical. If you go to Israel you’d be amazed at how small the distances are. It would be extremely easy for hamas rockets to shut down Ben Gurion airport if they were situated on the west bank ridge line. What would the TAC and its readership consider an appropriate response. What if suicide bombers hit downtown Tel Aviv, What could Israel do that a guy like Phil Giraldi would deem ok.”

Well now Bill I think this really starts to zero in on the answer to your initial question because I *do* suspect that if Israel gave up the West Bank it would indeed be in a situation that it could do lots of things that “a guy like Phil Giraldi would deem ok.”

Of course Giraldi can speak for himself (which would be interesting) as I’m really just saying that if Israel gave up the West Bank there’s lots of things it could do that the *world* would deem “ok.” And indeed I’m actually saying more as to the larger crucial point which is that I think that Israel would be in a far far better situation than it is now for all *kinds* of reasons.

Here’s my thinking at least: Firstly and most fundamentally I believe that your entire view essentially teeters on the assumption that the West Bank is indeed needed for Israel’s defense, and that if that assumption ever had any validity, it certainly has absolutely none now in the face of modern military reality.

The West Bank wasn’t seized on any defensive basis, remember, and it wasn’t even settled on that basis either, so that assumption is clearly only a post hoc rationalization. Israel itself has essentially always formally admitted that it isn’t needed on that ground (via never formally annexing it, and always saying that it was subject to being returned in a settlement agreement), and Ehud Olmert himself has just recently said that more than ever Israel’s fundamental defense just simply does not depend at all on holding onto this hill or that valley outside of Israel proper or etc. And this just confirms what many other Israeli military people have said over the years too, not to mention what other military folks have said and what is just obvious to everyone. That kind of military thinking in the modern age of warfare is just gone gone gone.

(Plus of course it’s simply undeniable that so much of the original impulse to hang onto the West Bank came not from any defense argument at all, but instead from blatant expansionists yelling “Eretz Yisrael!”)

So okay, look at the situation if Israel gave back the West Bank in return, say, for what the Abullah/Arab League plan offers which is recognition of the sovereignty of Israel’s ’67 borders by every member of the latter:

Do I think that to some degree, sooner or later, Israel would still experience an attack from some Palestinian radicals? Yes. However, you *bet* I think Israel would *still* be in a much better situation than it is now.

In the first place look at the enormous evaporation of support there would be in the arab world for any Palestinian radicals that still wanted to attack Israel: Not only the Arab League but Iran itself has expressly said that it would support any recognition of ’67 Israel proper so long as the Palestinian leadership had agreed to same.

And secondly look at the simply titanic pressure that would be exerted on whatever new Palestinian state that existed to prevent or crack down on any such continued attacks: The world I think would have not a whit of patience for the Palestinians then if they failed to stop such attacks. They’d have been given their clear chance.

And what about Israel’s freedom of action? Think for instance then if Israel erected a huge wall between it and the new Palestinian state: I doubt anyone would utter a peep compared to the reaction it’s gotten to its present wall. It would then simply be a matter of Israel’s absolute sovereign right to build whatever it wants on its own utterly undisputed land.

And if such attacks occurred and continued I suspect the world might even *force* whatever Palestinian state that existed to accept an international military body to halt same. And that’s because the only alternative that I think everybody would agree would be ultimately justified would be Israel threatening a goddamned final war on the Palestinians and occupation up to and maybe even including explusion of them to wherever to put an end to all this nonsense once and for all.

In short I think that the world would turn a face of almost utter stone to the Palestinian people if they made peace with Israel for the West Bank only to turn around and make war from there once again. Everyone, I think, is simply sick of this crap.

That said, I have to say I agree that all this is very probably besides the point as I don’t think Israel is ever going to give up the great bulk of the West Bank. But as the U.S. says that it is still only supporting that very thing essentially, I think it’s also still possibly valuable to have thought it out and have the *Israelis* think it out too since I do believe it is in their interest above all.

I’d also have to say however that I’m still of the Thomas Meehan opinion that the U.S. simply has no real interest in this conflict at this time and if I had my druthers I’d have it withdraw entirely from it. And I think that’s something the Israelis really have to fear and take into account too: Their interests are *not* invariably our interests and that is becoming ever clearer I think.

But, in that same respect, I would also say that if Israel *did* give back the West Bank and made peace with the Palestinians I think there would suddenly be a very good argument that we keep Israel as a close friend over there. While I think that “friendship” has been a terribly costly one to us so far, I think peace there could dramatically change this equation in Israel’s favor too.

Even if only as a matter of prudent, realist, geo-strategic calculation, the U.S. has to be concerned with potentially competing or conflicting blocs of geo-political power anywhere in the world. And Israel would be a very nice little splotch of easily supplied and strong friend there right the middle east amidst any any potential arab/Islamic power bloc. Not that I wouldn’t want to be friends with all the members of that potential bloc, but, you never just know for certain, do you?

In short I think Israel may be missing its last, best chance and that it ought to pay heed to Mark Twain’s famous quip to “always do right” given that it will not only surprise your friends but confound your enemies.

Cheers,
Philip Giraldi says:

February 24, 2009 at 6:25 am

Well Bill, since you ask and have named me specifically, I will respond. I knew many Israelis when I worked overseas and most of them were fine people, several became close friends. I wish them and the State of Israel nothing but the best. But Israel is a foreign country with its own national interest that is distinct from that of my country. I respect the right of ethnic minorities to lobby on behalf of their respective tribes, but I draw the line at sustained campaigns to subvert the interests of the United States to benefit a foreign country. In that context, I believe that the “special relationship” with Israel, which has developed not due to any real national interest on the part of the United States, has been poison for my countrymen, making us targets of terror, costing something like a hundred billion dollars, and turning us into a shill for apartheid-like policies that most Americans would not normally countenance. It has also been poison for the Israelis because it has encouraged them to come up with bad solutions to their genuine security problems, which I do recognize. So the short answer to your question is that I would be quite comfortable with Israel if Israel and its friends were to refrain from involving my country in their quarrels.

I do not necessarily believe that Israel’s making peace with the Palestinians based on a return of the West Bank is necessarily doable, nor do I think it would automatically end terrorism, but even Prime Minister Olmert has recognized that it is what has to be done. Of course, he only spoke the self-evident truth when he was leaving office, but such is the way of politicians everywhere. He knows very well that it is Israel that has torpedoed every opportunity for peace, not the Palestinians.

I would like to see the United States disengage militarily from the Middle East, returning to the principles of the Founders that we should be a friend to all and an enemy to none. I doubt if that will happen, however. I do believe that President Obama should recognize the US national interest demands that Washington begin to truly act as a fair broker towards Arab and Jew alike and that only the United States can force the two sides to come to an agreement. As Israel has had the whip hand thanks to uncritical US support, that will require a radical shift in policy and Obama will have to put enormous pressure on Bibi to seriously negotiate peace instead of threatening more war and more settlements. Obama has to make it clear that our interests and those of Israel are quite different.
Thomas O. Meehan says:

February 24, 2009 at 7:34 pm

MattSwartz. If I understood that you were indulging in sarcasm I would not have responded as I did. I’m glad you make this clear as I reviewed your previous comments and was puzzled by the disjunct. There are some odd points of view on this topic and so it’s easy to misjudge. The last thing I want are Blue on Blue exchanges. PAX.
Thomas O. Meehan says:

February 24, 2009 at 10:01 pm

The last thing I want IS Blue on Blue exchanges.
DirtyHarriet says:

February 28, 2009 at 9:03 am

I like it when the Bill’s of the world routinely trot out the Holocaust card in defense of Israel’s latest atrocities. By Holocaust card I mean, ‘this one or that one has threatened to wipe Israel off the map’ to which their next statement is that Israel does not do that.

Yes, you are correct, Israel does not ~threaten~ to wipe other countries off the map – it just does it. Witness the maps of the region from 100 years ago. What nation/state was there (Palestine), and what’s in its place now (Israel)? How did it come to be (ethnic cleansing)? Recall Israel’s wholesale destruction of the Lebanese civilian infrastructure in 2006, and again in Gaza 2008-2009.

In all of this, Israel might have the moral high ground if it did not itself engage in unlawlful activities. But it does when it continues to grab territory by force and build civilian housing therein in violation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. That is but one example of the many war crimes Israel has committed and continues to commit against its Arab neighbors. Americans have not been spared of Israel’s war crimes. http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm.