"Dammit, if that's the price we have to pay, let's pay it"

(via Andrew Sullivan via The American Conservative) Found an excellent and highly revealing post by Philip Weiss about the growing chasm in the Jewish-American political sphere on the Israel-Palestine issue between traditional AIPAC-style neocons and the more liberal J Street types. (For those of you less familiar with the battle lines here, the former see the conflict through a pretty hardcore pro-Israel lens, which they justify by noting that Israel is the sole liberal democracy in the region and far more worthy of support than Hamas-led Palestinians, while the latter are more evenhanded in their treatment of the two sides).

(General background of my views on the Israeli-Palestinian issue at the end of this post)

As Weiss notes, one of the great maxims of foreign policy is "that the strategic interests of two states inevitably will diverge." This is where my largest beef with Israel and its American boosters begins.

Ever since its turbulent founding in 1948, Israel has relied heavily upon U.S. government aid, generally in the form of weapons, for its continued security--well, for its continued existence, really. So heavily, in fact, that in 1973 the Israeli government chose to weather a massive Arab attack rather than risk losing U.S. aid by making preemptive strikes against the forces building up along their border.

It is less clear, though, exactly how much the United States benefits from its end of this relationship. Certainly our military and intelligence agencies cooperate extensively (though we are by no means completely trusting of one another), and without checking I'll assume we have some excellent trade deals worked out. Not to mention the general good will which has always prevailed between the populations of our two nations.

As anyone with a basic grasp of U.S.-Arab relations knows, however, our unwavering support for Israel is a major sore point among its neighbors and is one of the biggest, and, outside of Iran and prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, was arguably the biggest reason* for Arab popular hostility toward the United States.

You can see where this is heading. But I discovered in Weiss's post, though...well, I'll post my reaction after the quote.

Eric Alterman is a well known, fairly mainstream columnist for The Nation, one of the most influential left-leaning magazines in the United States. I have agreed and disagreed with him at various points in the past, but in general he has struck me as a serious, thoughtful writer. He took part in the panel discussion described in the linked post as one of "'the left,'" as Weiss puts it.

Alterman cited the maxim of foreign policy that the strategic interests of two states inevitably will diverge and said, "Sometimes I'm going to go with Israel" when its interests and the U.S.'s interests diverge. Because the US can take a lot of hits, but Israel can't.

You heard that right, boss. To her credit, Eisner asked Alterman to name a situation in which the two countries' interests diverge. Alterman offered: that bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists were "to some degree inspired" by the U.S. relationship to Israel. The general environment of "terrorist attacks" and their "pool" of supporters in the Arab/Muslim world obviously draws on the the U.S.-Israel relationship.

"Dammit, if that's the price we have to pay [for the special relationship], let's pay it... But let's be honest about it."

I wonder: how many Americans would share that view? (And where's the dual?)[in 'dual loyalties' -- Peter]

I had to force my eyes back over this several times just to be sure I hadn't misread the post. The US can take a lot of hits, but Israel can't...if that's the price we have to pay, let's pay it.

I'm happy that Eric Alterman would prefer Israel's supporters be honest about the war into which he just admitted Israel has dragged the United States. However, I can't figure out what, apart from a Rorschach-level devotion to transparency, could be motivating this bizarre level of honesty. Perhaps he's only paying the lip service to the idea--he couldn't actually believe that's a majority opinion, surely...? I'll go Weiss one further on skepticism here and assert that a solid majority of the American public would favor leaving Israel twisting in the wind if they thought it would mean a substantially reduced risk of Arab terrorist attacks on Americans.

The reality is far more complicated, of course. At this point, we're in a bit too deep to simply drop everything and leave, and there remains the nagging issue of oil supplies from the Gulf States, though it's not as though OPEC is doing us any favors.

The sheer presumptuousness of Alterman's words, though...he would put the safety of 300 million of his (apparently ostensibly) fellow countrymen at risk for the sake of 5 million Israelis? And he is counted as one of the liberals! Does this mean AIPAC would rather see a terrorist nuke hit the United States than Israel? After all, "the U.S. can take a lot of hits, and Israel can't." People are entitled to their views, but remember, this is widely acknowledged to be the most influential lobby in Washington. If I didn't know better, I might conclude that he was purposely trying to confirm the worst of the anti-Semitic paranoia currently confined to the dregs of Stormfront and its ilk.

Regardless, the Israel lobby seems to be taking an awful lot for granted recently in terms of American support, even by its usual standards. That may have flown with the past Administration, but it looks to be changing. Even their technical victory in the Charles Freeman affair came at a cost of raising their public profile, something anathema to any effective lobby.





*Neoconservatives like to cite Sayyid Qutb as evidence of innate Muslim/Arab hostility to America independent of our support of Israel. I see this as at best a gross distortion of Qutb's influence based on wishful thinking and at worst a canard intended to exaggerate his influence. Even discounting our support for Israel, Western (and at points Soviet, which to Qutb is identical in its toxicity to true Islam) support for brutal, authoritarian regimes across the Arab world including Qutb's own Egypt gave him fertile ground in which to plant his ultra-orthodox, anti-modernist doctrine. Nutcases and fanatics exist in all human societies, and widespread support for them should be taken as evidence of deeper problems rather than proof of true popularity of their brand of extremism. Hitler, too, received broad adulation throughout Germany, but we rightly attribute this to the worldwide economic crash of the 1930s and lingering bitterness over World War I than innate Germanic anti-Semitism or megalomania.

******
BACKGROUND

A quick rundown on my previous thoughts on this issue may be in order here. Israel is an amazing country, and the progress it has made in the mere half-century since its founding is little short of miraculous. A liberal democracy with a robust economy, outsize contributions to science and technology, and a large cultural influence as well as fantastic music of which I count myself a fan--all that with less than 5 million people on a glorified beach on the Mediterranean. Imagine what we could do with a world of Israels!

I do not by any means believe Israel is blameless in its conflict with the Palestinians. On the land issue, particularly, I am inclined to side with the Palestinians--just because you happen have a book which claims that God promised your people this land a few thousand years ago does not, in my mind, give you the right to summarily seize it from its current occupants. I do, however, recognize that simple eviction of one or the other side from the area is an impossibility, and in a nutshell I'd favor a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders, but Israeli-Palestinian relations are for another post.

One final word, however. Regardless of whether one wishes Israel good or ill, it cannot continue the status quo if it wishes to survive as a liberal democracy. Absent a massive deportation effort that would likely turn Israel into a true international pariah, demographics project that in a few short decades it will be a majority Arab state. The IDF can shell Gaza into the Stone Age and AIPAC can dump as much money as it likes into our political process, as is its right, but this fact remains.

BACKGROUND ENDS
******

Krauthammer: pettiness and insecurity

Charles Krauthammer splutters with indignant outrage at President Obama's 'apology' interview with the Dubai-based al-Arabiya cable network. (NOTE: outside of block quotes, I use single quotes to denote Krauthammer's words and double quotes for sayings or anything not from the column).

[Obama was] needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Krauthammer continues in this vein, angrily maintaining that even in the face of repeated abuse from the 'Muslim world', such as the OPEC embargo and all kinds of 'cold-blooded' terrorism, the United States has done nothing but seek to alleviate the plight of Muslims around the world.

Perhaps the past eight years have made it hard for Krauthammer to remember, but what Obama is doing is called "diplomacy." Regardless of how one-sided our relationship with the 'Muslim world' may be, if indeed it is, it is their perception of us that really matters. And currently, we are seen as the firm, unyielding backbone of the hated, land-stealing, baby-killing Zionist menace. That description may be significantly at odds with reality--and the additional hatred brought on since March 2003 may be even more at odds with Krauthammer's reality--but if our goal is to engage with the Muslim Middle East, that is the view with which we must engage, at least to start out with. The goal being, of course, to change it.

Keep in mind, Obama has made no actual concessions nor promises to the 'Muslim world' or any individual majority-Muslim Middle Eastern country. But reading Krauthammer, you'd think he gave away the world:

If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.

Again, it may be false, especially from Krauthammer's point of view, but it's the perception within the Muslim world that matters. More to the point, though, 'deeply injurious'? Really? How exactly does it hurt us as a nation for our president to apologize for perceived wrongs? For myself, I would add "especially when there is some substance to the complaints," but even if you take Krauthammer's view that we have done nothing but good, how exactly does it hurt us to simply apologize?

Hurt George W. Bush's legacy, perhaps, though by all accounts the former President needs no assistance there. But the United States 'as a country'? Again, even if this amounts to 'gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead', as Krauthammer continues, I fail to see how exactly that leaves us weaker as a nation.

On the contrary, owning up to one's own mistakes, real or perceived, and apologizing for same costs us nothing. In fact, I would argue that it makes us look more powerful. "Being the bigger man"--notice the word "bigger"?

Let's try a different tack. Ever see a Porsche commercial that loudly asserts their number one status? How about Johnny Walker--"Keep walking", what kind of an ad is that? Nothing in there about what makes their brand superior to that of other scotch.

Openly flaunting one's power and wealth creates the impression of insecurity and hidden weakness.* There's a reason that "nouveau riche" is considered an insult. A lesson certainly lost on the supremely patriotic and testy Bush Administration, and apparently on Charles Krauthammer, too. Or do is America really so fragile that a few apologies is enough to bring her down?






*In fact--and I can't find an exact quote at the moment--far better writers than I have observed a certain shabbiness associated with the truly wealthy, those with absolute security and a total lack of self-consciousness about their status. I have seen this mentioned more often in connection with the British rather than the American upper classes, which I assume is due to the greater length of British history allowing the upper classes to grow more accustomed to their greater means. (A quick Google search turns up this (search for "shabbiness") and this, just to provide a few examples). Of course, this also meant greater social stratification and less social mobility in general, as opposed to the rags-to-riches American Dream. Might these other characteristics also apply to countries as well as people? Perhaps, but, I would argue, not nearly as inevitably, and anyway that's another post.