Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time to Declare War on Israel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time to Declare War on Israel

    Time to Declare War on Israel

    By A. BARTON HINKLE | TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
    Published: September 10, 2010

    The latest issue of Time purports to explain "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace." (Hint: Blame the money-grubbing Jews!) There will be earnest efforts to point out why this is nonsense, but they will fall on deaf ears. These days a defense of Israel requires stronger measures. And perhaps nothing could do Israel more good than for the United States to declare war on it.

    After all, if you want to win the support of American academics, journalists, and movie stars -- if you pine for the approbation of the U.N. Security Council and NGOs the world over -- then you should get on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy.

    This has been true at least since 1933, when The New York Times' chief Stalinist, Walter Duranty, called reports of famine in Russia "malignant propaganda." Throughout the Cold War, Americans were instructed that communism was "fundamentally a more uplifting idea than capitalism" (Andy Rooney). That "most Soviets do not yearn for capitalism or Western-style democracy" (Dan Rather). That Fidel Castro was a "dashing," "larger-than-life personality" who not only "delivered the most to those who had the least" but who turned his nation into "paradise," a "peaceable society that treasures its children" (Diane Sawyer, Peter Jennings, Rather again, CBS' Giselle Fernandez, and Newsweek).

    When the Iron Curtain began to fall, Americans were told that "the transition from communism to capitalism is making more people more miserable every day" (CBS News). That "in the old Soviet Union, you never saw faces like these: the poor, the homeless . . . .[I]s this what democracy does? . . . [T]he price of freedom can be painfully high" (Barbara Walters). And so on, ad nauseam.

    If you wanted agitprop about the evils of anti-communism, Hollywood was happy to oblige. If you wanted to learn about the horrors of the gulag or Soviet psychiatric prisons, Hollywood was happy to change the subject. And while you would be hard-pressed to find much regard for Ronald ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") Reagan in academic circles, admiration for Mikhail Gorbachev was so high that it required the coining of a new word, Gorbasm.

    We see the same thing shaping up today with regard to radical Islamic extremism. Thanks to the debate over the Park51 mosque in Manhattan, the news media suddenly are full of stories about America the Intolerant -- reporting on a "torrent of anti-Muslim sentiments and a spate of vandalism," as The New York Times put it, not long before its front-page story, "American Muslims Ask: Will We Ever Belong?" "Protesters Use 'Sharia' as a Slur and Rallying Cry Against Islam," reports The Washington Post. "Is America Islamophobic?" asks a Time cover story.

    Three decades after Jimmy Carter lectured Americans about their "inordinate fear of communism," his intellectual heirs are lecturing the public about their inordinate fear of radical Islam.

    "Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s," an American Muslim tells The Times. Such as? Oh, maybe this: "There is indeed a belief . . . among most Jews that they are right. So it's not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is happening in the Middle East." Whoops! That wasn't from the 1930s -- it was from last week. The speaker was Karel De Gucht, the chief trade negotiator for the European Union. Never mind.

    A single whackjob in Florida decides to burn the Quran, and everybody from the president to the pope to Gen. David Petraeus to Sarah Palin to the nearest blogger in Starbucks lines up to denounce the deed. And rightly so. Yet from all the furor you would scarcely know that for every bias crime against a Muslim in the U.S., there are 10 bias crimes against Jews. (E.g., in 2008 the FBI logged 7,783 hate crimes; 105 of them targeted Muslims, and 1,013 targeted Jews.)

    Likewise in academia, one simply cannot be considered right-thinking if one does not deem Israel -- America's staunchest Mideast ally -- an imperialist, racist, illegitimate state that terrorizes innocent Palestinians. Hence, inter much alia, the move at Harvard to divest from Israeli companies. As for the thousands of Qassam rockets lobbed at Israeli civilians by Hamas "activists," or the fact that the Palestinian Authority's "moderate" Fatah government recently named a square in Ramallah after an infamous terrorist -- well, best not to speak of those things. Not if you want tenure, anyway.

    So you can easily see what Israel would gain from a formal American declaration of war. Ideally, the declaration should come from a Republican Congress -- preferably introduced by a Tea Party insurgent, at the behest of Glenn Beck -- but that's icing on the cake. The main thing is to put the Jewish state in the same position vis-à-vis the United States as Fidel Castro or the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

    Overnight, violent pro-Israel demonstrations would break out in San Francisco and New York. The press would term them "mostly peaceful." Counter-demonstrations would be described as angry mobs. Sean Penn and Michael Moore would collaborate on a movie glorifying the Israeli Defense Forces' raid of the "Freedom Flotilla's" Mavi Marmara. Campus centers of Middle Eastern studies would discover the virulent anti-Semitism of the official Arabic press, catalogued with depressing thoroughness at Memri.org. In English departments across the land, Zionist literary criticism would become the hot new thing. Posters of Che Guevara would come off college dorm walls, to be replaced by images of David Ben-Gurion.

    Who knows? If the war dragged on for a few years, maybe Time might even come to its senses.

    My thoughts do not aim for your assent -- just place them alongside your own reflections for a while.

    --Robert Nozick.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  • #2
    The latest issue of Time purports to explain "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace." (Hint: Blame the money-grubbing Jews!)
    I like an article that tells you its going to be a tedious polemic in the first sentence. Saves you wasting time.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • #3
      Bigfella Reply

      "I like an article that tells you its going to be a tedious polemic in the first sentence. Saves you wasting time."

      Then, no doubt, you missed this finishing comment by the writer-

      "My thoughts do not aim for your assent -- just place them alongside your own reflections for a while..."

      Probably accurate had you reached that far but, given (as example) the rush to judgement witnessed during the hullaballoo concerning the so-called freedom flotilla, not altogether unnecessary.

      Most arguments possess some level of polemics however mild or carefully couched. Beez dat way, bro. That you also suggest tedious likely means you weren't the intended audience in any case.
      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
        I like an article that tells you its going to be a tedious polemic in the first sentence. Saves you wasting time.
        I wish i was as expirienced as you are.
        I've read the whole article. And i feel dirty.
        Winter is coming.

        Comment


        • #5
          Seems very strange, with all the support given to Israel by the USA (money, weapons and what not) what more does the writer wish for?
          No matter what party is in power in USA it will still be Israels strongest supporter.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kuku View Post
            Seems very strange, with all the support given to Israel by the USA (money, weapons and what not) what more does the writer wish for?
            No matter what party is in power in USA it will still be Israels strongest supporter.
            The money and weapons are interrelated, and I've said this a couple times: Keep the money. The US Aid comes out to approximately 2% of our budget. We don't need it. On the other hand, the money that you give us gets diverted right back into the US economy to buy weapons, which in turn keeps the lines running and the factories and plants open, in turn giving the US economy a boost to the tune of $3-4 Billion or so. Those $3-4 Billion go much farther that way than if you were to just keep them in the US budget. That's basic economics. Investing money and buying a product spreads the money further down the line than just holding on to it or passing to just one or 2 people. With an economy that's about $17 gajillion in debt, any way you can make money back is something good.

            It would be much better for Israel AND for the US if the US stopped giving them aid, but in turn treated Israel like the nation it is instead of some vassal or 53rd or 54th state. 40 years ago, the US' and Israel's interests coincided magnificantly. Now, perhaps not so much, though we both have loads that we can still offer each other, but it would be much smarter to do this on an equal basis instead of as a favored serf.

            Considering that's the way Obama is treating Israel anyway, the money gives him legitimization. If we tell Obama to take his money and shove it, we can also tell him to butt the hell out, in much nicer words, of course. Then if the US wants something from Israel, or Israel wants something from the US, they'll build an actual dialogue based on quid pro quo and real world economies. Israel is currently one of the world's leaders in studies and application of energy saving and green technology. That's just one heavy hitting field we're good at.
            Last edited by bigross86; 13 Sep 10,, 16:07.
            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

            Comment


            • #7
              We don't need it. On the other hand, the money that you give us gets diverted right back into the US economy to buy weapons, which in turn keeps the lines running and the factories and plants open, in turn giving the US economy a boost to the tune of $3-4 Billion or so.
              We could not spend it and lower our yearly deficient by that much, we could spend it on our own military, spend it on our own public works, or give it to some other nation. Please don't pretend Israel accepts billions of dollars out of their kindness...
              To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by troung View Post
                We could not spend it and lower our yearly deficient by that much, we could spend it on our own military, spend it on our own public works, or give it to some other nation. Please don't pretend Israel accepts billions of dollars out of their kindness...
                I neer said we accept it out of kindness. As long as someone is willing to give us $4 billion, it makes sense to take it. Personally, I think that the conditions it comes with are not worth it, and my opinion is that it makes more sense for Israel to turn down the aid and regain some independence.

                I was pointing out, however, that while $4 billion might not lower your yearly deficient by much, the money would go further if it was spent in the military sector, a sector that's almost guaranteed to keep manufacturing plants open. Everybody needs guns, and Israel is a pretty steady customer. Remember those insanely expensive government funded road signs someone posted about a while back?
                Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                Comment


                • #9
                  well, i actually happen to agree with BR's POV here, although from the US side, not from the israeli side.

                  but it's easy to see that the US loses very little from a re-ordering of the relationship- it's israel that's gonna get hit hard. recall it's not just the money issue alone-- on just the military level, it's the access to training, it's the access to standardized weapon systems and interoperability, and access to extensive contacts with senior-level leadership...all of which israel needs from the US a good deal more than the other way around. even the point about funding our military-industrial plants isn't that much, given how US military arms exports with actual paying countries have absolutely exploded in the last 5 years (and it's only accelerating upwards).

                  on the political side, telling your biggest and pretty much only reliable friend in the world to "take your money and shove it" will probably not make israel's remaining friends (has she any left?) very happy, and will presumably only cheer up her enemies.

                  believe me, the US loses very little in this (perhaps tactical intel, although i'd argue this is already a quid-pro-quo relationship), while israel has very, very much to lose. that's why the israeli national security apparatus is so nervous anytime US-israeli relations are poor.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I dug up the TIME article in question. It does have a very informal feel to it.

                    Asked in a March poll to name the "most urgent problem" facing Israel, just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty. Israeli Arabs placed peace first, but among Jews here, the issue that President Obama calls "critical for the world" just doesn't seem — critical.
                    My questions to bigross

                    1) Does he agree with that figure ?
                    2) How reliable is that poll ? ..cos TIME does not even mention who conducted it

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      well, i actually happen to agree with BR's POV here, although from the US side, not from the israeli side.

                      but it's easy to see that the US loses very little from a re-ordering of the relationship- it's israel that's gonna get hit hard. recall it's not just the money issue alone-- on just the military level, it's the access to training, it's the access to standardized weapon systems and interoperability, and access to extensive contacts with senior-level leadership...all of which israel needs from the US a good deal more than the other way around. even the point about funding our military-industrial plants isn't that much, given how US military arms exports with actual paying countries have absolutely exploded in the last 5 years (and it's only accelerating upwards).

                      on the political side, telling your biggest and pretty much only reliable friend in the world to "take your money and shove it" will probably not make israel's remaining friends (has she any left?) very happy, and will presumably only cheer up her enemies.

                      believe me, the US loses very little in this (perhaps tactical intel, although i'd argue this is already a quid-pro-quo relationship), while israel has very, very much to lose. that's why the israeli national security apparatus is so nervous anytime US-israeli relations are poor.
                      If you lend a decent amount of money to a friend, something changes. You feel that he should be friendlier and more open to your suggestions, and he feels that he should be a bit friendlier and more open to your suggestions. It's basic human nature. We feel indebted to someone, so we try and make up not only the monetary aspect, but we try to repay the favor as well. Especially since we don't like the emotional blackmail that could come with lending someone a large amount of money.

                      It's not much different in this case. Perhaps my phrasing of "telling them to shove it" was a bit harsh, but stating that we no longer want the money should not be a problem. I'm not saying that we should cut ourselves off from the US, especially since, realistically, we still need them and their support, weapons and other stuff. However, if you've got a 24 year old son living at home, and you pay for his food, school, car, and give him an allowance, you earn the right to tell him what to do. That's all good and well for a parent and a child, but that doesn't work well with nation-states and international relations.

                      Like the Colonel says, nations don't have friends, they have common interests. It is my belief that at this current point in time, the US' and Israel's interests have diverged and are not as hand in hand as they were in the 1960's when we were still a fledgling state and needed a superpower's backing, and the USA needed a client state in the Middle East to keep it from falling to the Soviets.

                      Israel still needs support from a superpower and we still need backing, but I believe that this should be backing and support earned properly, with trade and with money. Israel needs to take it's place as a nation and not as a proxy of the US, especially since with the current Administration, being a proxy of the US does not mesh well with our government's policy.

                      At the same token, we don't need to take on a superpower, either. We need to be the biggest kid on the block, but only in our block. We need to be able to take on our neighbors and walk away from it. We don't need to take on Russia. Our goal is to be able to absorb a strike from one of Iran's client states, either Lebanon, Syria or from Hamas in Gaza, and then have enough left afterward to make them pay for it.

                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      I dug up the TIME article in question. It does have a very informal feel to it.



                      My questions to bigross

                      1) Does he agree with that figure ?
                      2) How reliable is that poll ? ..cos TIME does not even mention who conducted it
                      I'm interested in knowing what exactly the difference between the conflict with Palestinians and national security and how they differ. If you ask me, they're more or less one and the same. Does the figure make sense? Half a year ago, I would say that yes, it does. People forget quickly, and it had been quite some time since Cast lead in 2008 and even longer since the second Intifada in 2000 and Lebanon in 2006. Do I believe that figure would stay the same if asked in a poll today, after the 2 shooting attacks and the current peace talks? I don't think so.

                      As for how reliable the poll is, did you know that 72% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
                      Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                      Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        BR,

                        If you lend a decent amount of money to a friend, something changes. You feel that he should be friendlier and more open to your suggestions, and he feels that he should be a bit friendlier and more open to your suggestions. It's basic human nature. We feel indebted to someone, so we try and make up not only the monetary aspect, but we try to repay the favor as well. Especially since we don't like the emotional blackmail that could come with lending someone a large amount of money.
                        well...that's at odds with:

                        Like the Colonel says, nations don't have friends, they have common interests.
                        certainly the US didn't give israel money out of the kindness of our hearts-- we give israel money because, to put it frankly, we want her to do as we want. strings are ALWAYS attached to money.

                        at the same time, israel has also done a pisspoor job of developing ties. israel is in a position where, despite getting a large amount of US foreign aid, she is not given the same access and cooperation as NATO countries, let alone the ABCA countries.

                        part of this is because of the way israel operates (highest level of spying on part of a "friendly" country, extremely abrasive behavior in terms of its representatives-- ask any member in the DoD foreign relations community), but an even bigger part is simply because israel wants to keep its strategic independence.

                        ie israel strategic goals are quite different from US strategic goals, which has been true across administrations-- only now, obama is very rightly starting to make connections between what we're paying for and what we're getting.

                        like i said, US gains the most here and israel has quite a bit to lose; because even if israel reject the aid, she won't gain a significant amount of strategic independence. for if israeli strategic independence starts trampling on US strategic goals, the difference will be the main US method of persuasion being the stick, not the carrot.
                        Last edited by astralis; 13 Sep 10,, 19:36.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Astralis Reply

                          "...certainly the US didn't give israel money out of the kindness of our hearts-- we give israel money because, to put it frankly, we want her to do as we want. strings are ALWAYS attached to money."

                          Actually, we may have done exactly that if you consider the Colonel's maxim in something less than crass cynicism. "Common interests" stem from shared values. The preservation of that value system and those core values around which it is constructed is near and dear to most American hearts. The promotion of the same equally so.

                          Doing as we "...want..." seems much easier for Israel than, say, Saudi Arabia, when viewing matters beyond the temporal quality permeating daily global intercourse n'est pas?
                          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Astralis, I don't see how the two conflict. I was giving one example from real life, and using it to draw a conclusion on a different situation. Whether you want to call the state between the US and Israel in the 1960's friendship or just extremely close common interests, it's just semantics.

                            In the end, the same things holds true whether it's two people or two nation-states.

                            No one is denying that there are strings attached to the money, but I think that it's time we severed one or two of those strings and learned how to walk using our own two feet
                            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              believe me, the US loses very little in this (perhaps tactical intel, although i'd argue this is already a quid-pro-quo relationship), while israel has very, very much to lose. that's why the israeli national security apparatus is so nervous anytime US-israeli relations are poor.
                              I would say the big loss if US-Israel relations were to degrade is the fact that they would suddenly be a small nation in a tenuous position with access to extremely advanced technology and no friends; I'm sure the Chinese would love to step into the void we've left and start working together to develop all sorts of new military equipment.

                              While we would not directly lose much, other nations would gain quite a bit, and that's probably not in our interests. With the amount of influence we have on Israeli procurement now, we have a lot of say in who they can work with, and what areas we'd rather they not pursue. (The IAI Lavi is a good example.)
                              "Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X