Netanyahu for President
Benjamin Netanyahu is back in the United States, rallying his troops and hectoring the administration. I stand in such awe of this man that I propose we suspend our now pointless requirement of being American born and run Mr. Netanyahu as the candidate of both parties. Why not? It's not as if the US government, under either Democrats or Republicans, were not already AIPAC Inc. Besides, it might be a refreshing change to have as President a man who is endowed with high intelligence, tough-talking eloquence, and a single-minded determination to advance the interests of his country. And, unlike their American counterparts, Israeli political leaders do not make a sharp distinction between what is good for the government and what is good for the people.
Netanyahu's aggressive policies are probably misguided, because in the long run it is in Israel's best interests to normalize its position in the Near East. As Leon Hadar has argued in the past, Israel, if it wishes to survive, must change its status from that of Crusader State or European colony to that of a conventional state willing to do business with its neighbors. But, then, I am an American, and what they do to defend their interests is of little interest to me, except, of course, for the fact that the our government long ago gave a blank check—morally as well as fiscally—to Israeli aggression. If our money and global clout were not supporting Israeli terrorism against all those nice Muslims who really do want to be our friends, my only concern would be the protection of Christian holy places and the defense of the few dwindling Christian communities that have survived the persecution of both Muslims and the Jewish state. As it is, Netanyahu's constantly reiterated declaration that is up to Israel to look out for itself without consulting us is complete and utter nonsense. We who pay the piper—or rather a whole army of pipers along with planes, tanks, and armored divisions—should occasionally have something to say about the tune that is being called.
I don't know which group is more dishonest and hypocritical: Israel's friends that make this secular state a divinely sanctioned bulwark against the forces of evil and anti-Americanism, or the enemies that portray Israel as a Nazi state that is committing unparalleled aggression against the peace-loving A-rabs. Both scenarios pit angels of light against angels of darkness, apply entirely different standards to the two parties, and rely on a distorted historical sense that can best be described as mythomania.
To clear the air of some of the nonsense written and shouted by both parties, I offer a few facts in the interest of demystifying our relations with Israel. First, the mechanics. It probably does not need saying but I shall say it anyway. We have given trillions of dollars of aid in various forms to the government of Israel, which then sends some of it back to bribe US politicians. The American Jewish lobbies are also in the business of bribing our politicians, but they have an even better weapon: intimidation. I think it comes as no surprise to anyone that this tiny minority of our population holds a preponderant share of control over our media, entertainment, and elite academic institutions. This makes it impossible for anyone but a leftist Jew to criticize Israel. By the way, these leftist Jews are, for the most part, utterly despicable. They have no loyalty either to the United States or to Israel. (The righteous Jews, in and out of Israel, who criticize the Israeli government are an entirely different matter.)
Blaming Israeli political leaders for trying to influence US politicians in their country's interest is stupid, naive, and hypocritical. This is what national political leaders in any country are being paid to do. It is also wrong to blame American Jews for being biased in favor of Israel. How are they different from the Irish, Polish, Mexican, and Albanian Americans who also lobby (that is bribe and intimidate) politicians in order to prejudice them in favor of their ancestral land. The primary difference is that Jews are more effective in their lobbying, because they are willing to spend their money and intelligent to understand the advantage in taking over cultural institutions.
I do not at all criticize the lobbying efforts of Jewish Americans or Irish Americans. They do, however, raise the obvious question: If the great melting pot really worked, why are so many Irish Americans still whining about the Potato Famine, which they are trying to insert into public school curricula as the Irish Holocaust, and why, if they are true-blue Americans, do so many Jews openly support Israel, even when its aims are openly in conflict with US policy? To care about one's people is a natural and wholesome instinct, but these dual loyalties have a tendency to distort a nation's policies and confuse its identity. We cannot turn back the clock to a time when the most division in the US was between the English and Anglo-Celtic ethnicities, but some ethnic wardheelers might profitably spend a few moments in pondering George Washington's warning against domestic factions that involve our country in foreign entanglements.
The second fact that is too obvious to need mentioning is that Israel is an ally of the United States. In our current conflict with the Islamic world, which we refuse to admit is a conflict with the Islamic world, Israel is one of our few allies. Yes, much of Islamic hostility stems from our special relationship with our democratic ally in the Near East, but so what? When we were at war with Britain, we sought allies in France. In the 20th century, our alliance with Britain made us enemies of Germany. Was so strong an alliance with Britain a mistake? I think so. But when armies are committed, it is a bit late to begin rethinking alliances. Besides, Muslim states with so much oil wealth were going to turn against the West some day. We did not have to make ourselves the number one target by creating and backing the Jewish state, but it is too late to back out. We have betrayed so many allies over the years—the Somozas, the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos—it is small wonder that nobody trusts us. It is in our own interest, in many ways, not to abandon Israel to a fate she often seems to deserve.
Israel is, admittedly, a troublesome and unreliable ally that routinely spies on the US. Well, this is not the only country to have spied on its allies. Britain ran a famous espionage ring here in the US in the run-up to WW II, and there are Americans stupid enough to laud the exploits of Sir William Stephenson and his 007 henchman, Ian Fleming, who later bragged of murdering a German agent on American soil before we were at war with Germany. It is impossible not to admire Fleming's exploits but an American patriot would also like to have seen him hanged.
By all means, we should punish Israeli agents who work in the US, execute their American stooges, and rev up our own espionage against them, but let us drop the hypocrisy. The Israelis are doing what they believe they need to do to survive in a very tough neighborhood. I do not always admire their tactics—which include espionage,torture, kidnapping, and murder—but our ancestors were not too gentle in the treatment of our own native bands of terrorists. The Zionist Jabotinsky drew the express parallel between Palestinians and the Plains Indians. What we did to the Sioux and Apache is more or less what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians. It is not pretty, but then genocidal conflict rarely is. While it is true that the Israelis started this conflict, it is no less true that the Palestinians play by rules even dirtier than the Israelis.
Our relations with Israel should be governed by the rules of our own self-interest which would dictate a policy of prudently exercised loyalty to our ally without sacrificing any of our own national interest. I leave it to bribable politicians (a redundant expression) to decide among their paymasters where our national interest truly lies, but one argument that should be forbidden in any discussion of US-Israel relations is religion. This is my final fact.
First off, the good old United States of America is a secular country that has repudiated every Christian moral principle: We permit divorce and abortion and actively encourage homosexuality. Anyone who starts mooning over the Promised Land in which the Jews have always lived for so many thousands of years should be excluded forever from any serious conversation about the Near East. Just one tiny fact: Well before the time of Our Lord's Incarnation, a majority of Jews chose to live outside of the Promised Land, and this is true up to this day. Once in Tel Aviv at a dinner party, an American Jewish nationalist got his comeuppance from an Israeli journalist when the American refused to hear the phrase "occupied territory" and started shouting about Galilee-Samaria. In this argument between Jews, I wisely held my peace. Otherwise I might have pointed out that Solomon quite cheerfully traded away much of Galilee to Hiram of Tyre in return for timber gold to build the temple. It was nearly 900 years later when a Jewish ruler conquered Galilee and forcibly converted the non-Jewish inhabitants on pain of death. So much for never abandoning one sacred inch of the holy land!
If we were going to adopt a Christian perspective, it would be miles away from the pseudo-Christian Zionism of certain famous Evangelical preachers. Mythical theories about the Chosen People and their Promised land are not consistent with Christianity from the preachings of Christ, in the last days before his arrest, the epistles of Paul, the traditions of the Christian Church before and after Constantine, the traditions of East and West in the Middle Ages, or the teachings of Luther and Cranmer. It is the consistent teaching of Christianity that we, not the Jews who repudiated their Messiah when He came, are the heirs of the promise. There is no legitimate counter-tradition, and the case for Christian Zionism is built entirely upon lies.
Christian Zionists who advocate, in the extreme case, or aid and abet a genocidal extermination of Palestinian Christians and Muslims, are no kind of Christian at all. At the best they can be regarded as ideological dupes, useful idiots recruited on one of those tours the Israeli government is so fond of promoting for hucksters like Pat Robertson or John Hagee. There is too much blood on their minds, too much blood on their hands for them to be regarded as any kind of Christian. They are one of the uglier faces of anti-Christ in our time, and if any of the Christian Zionist leaders is actually sincere in his professions, he is far worse off than the greedy liars who have taken money from the enemies of the religion they pretend to espouse.
The hypocrisy and hysteria that have enveloped all discussions of the Middle East may, in the long run, cause serious trouble for the United States and spell disaster for Israel. If we can eliminate some of the lies and hypocrisy used by both proponents and opponents of Israel, we could look out more scrupulously for our own interests and, at the same time, become in time a more rational and thus more useful ally of Israel. The very success of Jewish lobbying in encouraging Israeli militancy and intransigence and in preventing any honest discussion in the US may, in the end bring, on another Babylonian Captivity or another forced diaspora.
Entries(RSS)
#46. Mr. Marino, with all due respect, you are generalising and labelling too loosely. Most Southern white Protestants are NOT "Christian Zionists." The few who are are noisy. There is absolutely zero connection between Southerners' willingness to serve in the military and "Christian Zionism."
Anne Rice novels strike me as yet one more example of the inversion of values -- vampires are glamorized instead of seen as enemies of humanity. A far cry from Stoker's Dracula, which -- from what I remember of it -- it's been about twenty years since I read it -- has quite a few theological elements to it and serious moral point.
As I recall Stoker depicts one of the vampire-bitten characters as being unable to receive the eucharist, which was striking to me at the time because I didn't know what the eucharist is. The ending too, is striking, because when Dracula is finally staked it comes to him as a sort of relief.
I don't know too much about who belongs to what school and so on, but I am wondering if Dr. Fleming's critiques of Neothomism include Jacques Maritain? I made one attempt to read a book of his, Introduction to Philosophy, but the introductory chapter grated on me so much that I couldn't bring myself to finish it.
Back on topic -- I don't remember if somebody on the radio made a reference to gangsters or if it just popped into my mind, but I found myself reminded of The Godfather when listening to discussions of the recent assasination in Dubai. In this instance I'm not inclined to applaud the Israelis -- they did, after all, violate another country's sovereign territory, and wronged those countries whose passports they used.
On the other hand I'm hardly inclined to wring my hands in scandalized horror, either, anymore than I would when the Corleones whack one of their mortal enemies. I mean, what did you *expect* them to do?
I guess what I mean is that while most people would consider comparing somebody to a mobster an insult, for me it's a way of making sense of their behavior and even attaining a measure of sympatic comprehension albeit not endorsing them.
For us, if American leaders were to start behaving like old-school mafia bosses it would be a vast improvement. I don't know anything about real-life mobsters, but in fiction at least they are portrayed as occasionally having some concern for their own people.
Dr. Wilson,
"Most Southern white Protestants are NOT “Christian Zionists.” The few who are are noisy."
Yes, they are noisy and I suspect it would be interesting to attempt to follow their money trail.( Who is propping them up and providing for all that television time? ) Most of the big names like Hagee and Hinn are really not very good at what they do compared to the real thing; Although Hagee sounds more like a Southern Baptist than Benny Hinn sounds like Apostolic Assembly. For a real taste of what Southern religion was/is all about one should watch Robert Duvall in the Apostle E.F.. Having grown up in and around that culture as a Roman Catholic minority, I recognize every one of the characters in that movie as well as the authentic goodness in most of them. It is sad and quite irritating to see idiotic yankees portray them as stupid and bigoted neighbors. They are still the best neighbors one could ever have. Or at least they are quite a contrast in elegant manners and colorful character to the arrogant, small, yankee slobs I see at my son's Ivy League Schools. But heck, we are all Yankees today except for Clyde and he has retired.
. @35, SLT writes:
.
"We have absolutely no obligation to remain unconditional allies and enablers of Israel forever. If we revise the terms of our alliance openly and honestly we would not be breaking our word at all."
.
. Yes, and the following in TJF's article should have made clear that's not what I was signing on to when I approved his proposals:
.
"As it is, Netanyahu’s constantly reiterated declaration that is up to Israel to look out for itself without consulting us is complete and utter nonsense. We who pay the piper—or rather a whole army of pipers along with planes, tanks, and armored divisions—should occasionally have something to say about the tune that is being called."
.
And:
.
"By all means, we should punish Israeli agents who work in the US, execute their American stooges, and rev up our own espionage against them, but let us drop the hypocrisy."
.
And finally:
.
. "Our relations with Israel should be governed by the rules of our own self-interest which would dictate a policy of prudently exercised loyalty to our ally without sacrificing any of our own national interest."
This is hardly a recipe for remaining "unconditional allies and enabler of Israel forever". As I said in my first post on this thread, it is this balance - including this "tough" part of tough love - that makes TJF's prescription attractive to me.
Dr. Wilson with all due respect: I didn't say most. I said a lot, not most. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are in Old Virginia. John Hagee is in Texas. According to most polling the most support for our wars seems to be in the South. I just said it was sad that this is happening. I like the South and some of it's traditions.
"most support for our wars seems to be in the South. I just said it was sad that this is happening. "
John,
I think there is still a Don Quixote type admiration for chivalry in the South. It is of course all misdirected and fraudulent today, but the intention was at one time quite honorable. I joined the Marines for the silliest and best reasons --- My great great Grandfather was a confederate Cavalry man, I remember the tears in my Father's eye when he said good bye to my cousin heading off for Vietnam,(shot twice but now ranching) I liked their uniforms, I liked their advertisemnt, " We still build'em like we used to," I thought service was an honorable thing, I was getting married and wanted my wife to be more proud of me, and perhaps others reasons as well. What do kids know about lieing and cheating by their government, the duplicity of politicians and recruiters or all the rest of what we have become? It wasn't all bad. The truth is our colleges and Universities have been taken over by anti-traditionalists who see their role as "moving us forward" or learning something from the past so we can improve our future, expanding some hitherto unknown freedom, and God knows what other nonsense. A kid can learn more these days by attending one Rockford Summer School or learning a foreign language than he can in two years at most of our "elite institutions". Doesn't mean,however, you don't need the license. Throw in a little college Latin or Greek and who knows what kind of delight may follow int he days ahead. But anybody who thinks raising kids these days( in the North or South) is like raisng corn, is either going to be no damn good at it or disappointed. Let the Southern kids learn it on their own -- sometimes there is nothing left but ones honor!!
Since my comment is still awaiting moderation I am re submitting it.
Dr. Fleming,
I am considering an undergraduate degree in philosophy and further studies in Catholic theology. Thus, I was hoping that you could elaborate on your critique of Thomism or neo-Thomism. Would you consider Lagrange as one of those neo-Thomists who St. Thomas would spurn?
I just ran over the comments and approved this one. I am not the one to comment on Fr. Lagrange, since I have read far too little to form an opinion. Besides, his subjects are loftier than those I have spent time on. I would suggest that one should first study Thomas and "the philosopher" whose work he followed before pursuing more modern followers, though I do strongly recommend Josef Pieper as a brilliant and crystal-clear thinker and writer, deeply grounded in ancient and Medieval thought.
I think the noisy Christian Zionists and political preachers (Southern and otherwise) are people who think their origins make them inferior and they want to get near to power and respectability. They will do almost anything for that, besides which Christianity is a distant second concern. You have to hand it to them, though---they have figured out where the power is.
Thank you Dr. Fleming for stating the facts. The Church is the new Israel and Judaism is now a pagan religion the same as Islam. There is now only one way to the Father and that is Christ. Isn't it interesting that Jews offer no more blood sacrfices since God used the Romans to wipe the temple mount clean. By the way, you didn't mention that Mossad is a terrorist organization that had much to do with 9/11. The evidence is abundant and remember the Liberty!
Dr. Fleming,
Thanks for the reply. I am sorry that this is off-topic from the post, but I was hoping that you could explicate a bit on what you meant when you said, "Most people who call themsves Thomists are Neothomists, a rationalizing sect of apriorists the Doctor would have spurned".
Thanks for this article. Much of what I have long wondered about, having never been a student of theology, is answered here. My mother and aunt rave on and on about the end of the world and what they have learned from Hagee. I never knew quite what to make of this. Now I know. Thanks, too, to Dr. Peters for first bringing up dispensationalism. This was the key to understanding.
From Whitey's Web throne: "The Anti-Christ already here, and sitting on a throne in Rome. Making one-world plans with Israel. To save himself, and this world."
Crawl back under the crack you came from
and quit acting like a clown.
You're comments are turning
This web page brown.
Mr. Fleming, are you aware of the Israeli attack on the US Liberty in 1967?
Yes, indeed. I believe Chronicles is one of the few serious magazines to have commented on the findings of the commission of high-ranking military officers and diplomats who concluded that Israel had deliberately attacked the US Liberty, followed up the attack with an attempt to finish off the survivors, but these crimes were covered up by a US administration that was more concerned with preserving our special relationship than with the lives of its military personnel.
Geez, where have I been all this time? I am a new (3 yr) subscriber to this magazine. 66 years old this year, married since 1968, raised a family, believed in the "litter box" called the United States Congress and I am finally starting to hear some people speaking the truth. My appologies to all my fellow country men. One question please, if any of you come across this post and would be willing to comment, what 12 books would you suggest I read over the next 6 months.
I appologize for interrupting your conversation. I did not graduate from college and am "hell bent" to make up for my lack of understanding of what is going on today. CarlO