George Washington, Call Your Office
by Tom Piatak
January 6th, 2009 • Related • Filed Under
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Over at NRO, Mona Charen announces that she will be attending a rally to support Israel in front of the Israeli embassy today, and she asks NRO readers to “please come and help demonstrate that millions of us passionately support Israel’s right to exist in peace and security.”
One wonders how it would be possible to distinguish a rally for Israel from the standard, daily fare at NRO. One also wonders what our first (and greatest) President would think of our indulgence in such a “passionate attachment of one nation for another.”
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 6 January 2009:
One of the lions of NATIONAL REVIEW when it was intellectually vigorous was James Burnham. He was opposed to American involvement in Middle East afffairs and said something to the effect that America’s only interest in the Middle East was the oil under its sand. It is 2009 and what Burnham wrote forty years ago remains true.
Israel’s relations with her enemies are really not America’s affair. However, Israel’s strategic situation is certainly much stronger than it was in 1948, 1967 or 1973. Israel is at peace with Egypt and Jordan. Syria knows war with Israel would be suicidal. The myriad Arab terrorist groups are more a nuisance than a danger to the Israeli state. Israel’s greatest threat, like that of Europe and America, is from within.
2 Comment by Michael Averko on 6 January 2009:
Tom
Your last point is answered with the frequently stated claim that Israel is either America’s greatest ally or one of its best. This gets repeated with the ingrained knowledge about the past historical experiences of Jews.
For accuracy sake, it’s good to have balance between the two extremes of looking at Israel.
I use the pro-Israeli argument in other instances pertaining to the former USSR and former Yugoslavia. It’s not in the best interests of the West to have sided so heavily against the Serbs. Likewise, Russia could and should be viewed in a way different from the predominating biases evident on Capital Hill.
I am very aware at how some selectively use the word “disproportionate.”
3 Comment by Red Phillips on 6 January 2009:
The problem with this whole debate is that the sides are hard wired. And how you view it depends on what camp you are in. I believe Dr. Fleming has made this observation as well. One need only look at the name calling and vitriol on both sides. I think it is a mistake for those of us whose primary concern is to disentangle ourselves from the whole mess to get too involved in arguing about who is right. It is a complex situation and there is no black and white. I don’t really care if Mona Charen supports Israel. It is natural that she does. And I don’t care that PCR supports the Palestinians. The point we need to make over and over is that the US should be neutral. In fact, the fact that the sides are so emotional is all the more reason the government that has to represent both those sides should be neutral.
My suggestion is for paleos to pound home official state neutrality at every opportunity and spend less time admonishing Israel.
4 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 6 January 2009:
@1 Derek
The IDF didn’t fare particularly well against Lebanon a couple of years ago. Have they learned anything since? When this Gaza escapade gets down to the block-by-block house-by-house urban war, the Arabs might just get the upper hand and pick off Israeli soldiers one by one and deliver a little humiliation to their oppressors.
Charen should change her first (not Christian) name to Moaner.
5 Comment by Tom Piatak on 6 January 2009:
Dr. Philipps,
I agree that the United States ought to stay out of this dispute. Nowhere did I suggest that Israel was wrong, or Hamas is right. I suspect that if I were an Israeli, I would support what Israel is doing. But my concern, as an American, is that as long as we fund and arm Israel, we will be blamed for what Israel does, and Americans may pay the price when Arabs seek to take revenge for Israel’s actions in Gaza. As you say, the correct course for us is neutrality in disputes that do not affect our vital interests, and the fight between Israel and Hamas does not affect any of our vital interests
But I also think that Washington was right in warning us of the dangers of forming passionate attachments to other nations, and that Charen and many others at NRO, such as Andrew McCarthy and Victor Davis Hanson, exemplify this passionate attachment in the case of Israel.
6 Comment by Michael Averko on 6 January 2009:
By no means should the paleos or anyone else shy away from making reasoned points on the ME.
It’s a conflict that gets plenty of attention. CSPAN provided a live telecast of this afternoon’s/evening’s UNSC meeting on the current crisis in the ME.
This was a sudden meeting which attracted such top foreign policy brass as Rice, Kouchner, Miliband and the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yakovenko. It’s Orthodox Christmas Eve and I suspect that Yakovenko (which if I’m not mistaken is a Jewish surname) might’ve taken the place of Lavrov.
The Saudi FM and PA leader were also present at this UNSC meeting.
7 Comment by Beau on 6 January 2009:
Israel is to America in 2009 what Serbia was to Russia in 1914. If anyone in Washington had a lick of sense, they’d get off the slippery slope of supporting a tiny ally of minute historical and strategic significance who, however, retains the power to bring us or at least our interests down with it.
8 Comment by robert m. peters on 6 January 2009:
Before a roaring fire at the close of a day’s hunting in Black Lake Bayou Bottom, the fat was well chewed. Among the pieces thereof savored was the present conflict Holy Land. I must admit that our forum on the topic fared no better than those in New York or Washington. In the end, I pulled up my half-shell and blanket to go to sleep and stated that I would simply pray for the Peace of Jerusalem. To which one of the men quipped to me through the flames from the other side of the circle, “You’d better be careful with that prayer. God just might let both sides kill each other off, and then your prayer would be answered; there would be peace in Jerusalem!” I continue to so pray; but as this current round of violence grids on, I have to wonder about the words which came through the flames.
9 Comment by J Meng on 6 January 2009:
Red Philips, @3, and Tom Piatak, @5:
Red, it is not a complex situation: the Zionist stole the lands of the Palestinians, initially, with the help of their British sugar-daddies, and indirectly, by President Woodrow Wilson’s approval of the Zionist agenda as summarized in the Balfour Declaration. Ever since, the Arabs have been reacting, which is normal, when someone attempts to steal your property. Don’t you agree? Read the history of this sad story, beginning in 1915. As a historical note, the U.S. has not been neutral with regard to Israel since its recognition of the self-proclaimed independence of Zionists in May 1948 (with a minor exception in 1956 and John Kennedy’s refusal to condone Israeli research on the atom bomb).
To the both of you: what benefit does America accrue by being allied with Israel? Since 1948, what benefit has America obtained from its alliance with Israel? Over at WRMEA website, they claim that since 1949 over 100 billion dollars of taxpayer monies have been given, ultimately, to Israel. The major offensive weapon-systems being used against Gaza were given to Israel by the U.S. But, what is flowing back to the U.S. from Israel for our benefit? The only thing I see coming our way, is hatred from the Muslim world and scorn from western Europe and others. Israel has been a tar baby from the beginning, and look at us, now.
10 Comment by Red Phillips on 6 January 2009:
Tom, my comment wasn’t aimed at you. I was just making a general comment. Some paleos in reaction to the real and perceived influence of Israel and her supporters have “sided” with the Palestinians. My point is that this doesn’t necessarily serve the cause of disengagement and non-intervention well. We should spend less time arguing why Israel is in the wrong, and more on why America should mind its own business.
Any patriot is going to first and foremost concern himself with his own country. Passionate personal attachments however are natural, probably unavoidable, and not necessarily a problem in and of themselves. (Actually this is an argument against immigration.) That people of Polish descent concern themselves with Poland is fine, for example, taken alone. In fact, it seems as if Washington was presupposing these personal attachments. The problem is when people with passionate personal attachments expect the government of all the people to share their particular attachment and base policy on it. This is where Mona Charen and the NRO crowd go wrong
That emotions distort this debate is evidenced by the fact that J Meng seems to believe I was defending some sort of America Israel alliance when I was doing just the opposite.
11 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 6 January 2009:
We don’t really have a dog in that fight, but our weapons and money are punishing Gaza.
Neither side is especially warm and fuzzy. If we tune in WIIFM (What’s In It For Me), we would hear an echo, “Not bloody much!”
It’ll cost a Senator his seat to say so, though.
12 Comment by Michael Averko on 6 January 2009:
Good point on the duel sentiment some have. IMO, American born/American living persons have a primary loyalty to the US. How one defines that loyalty can vary.
Americans of eastern European background had reason to oppose the Warsaw Pact member governments. The end of the Cold War was a blessing to them.
Last summer’s war in the Caucasus was a conflict where it could be legitimately argued that going against Russia wasn’t in the American national interest.
Regarding the ME, folks like Kristol aren’t consistent. Note how they’re willing to back the Muslim adversaries of the Russians and Serbs in an attempt to “win” the Muslim street. On the other hand, they wouldn’t sacrifice Israel in the same way. As a pointed note to some out there, there’re non-neoconservative Jews who concur with this observation. Like a good number of Christians, Muslims at large aren’t all prone to support one side over the other because of religion. This last point is made to underscore the failed advocacy of the Kristols.
Beau
Your Israel to America/Serbia to Russia analogy overlooks how the support for Austria-Hungary had flaws. There’re notable differences. Unlike Israel, Serbia in 1914 wasn’t occupying the involved land in conflict. The same can’t be said of Austria-Hungary.
13 Comment by woodcutter on 7 January 2009:
Here is a couple of questions….. Is a Jewish American an American first and then Jewish? I am pretty sure that the average Christian American would say he is American first and then Christian. I am not so sure about Jewish Americans. Can a Jewish American be neutral? I think not.
14 Comment by Bruce on 7 January 2009:
Meng @ 9: “Red, it is not a complex situation: the Zionist stole the lands of the Palestinians, initially, with the help of their British sugar-daddies……Ever since, the Arabs have been reacting, which is normal, when someone attempts to steal your property.”
Well the same could be said of us wrt the Injuns. Would you fight the Injuns if they began attacking us? What would you do if they told you to go back to Switzerland? Of course, that doesn’t refute the basic point of the article.
I think Dr. Phillips is being very reasonable about this.
15 Comment by Michael Averko on 7 January 2009:
Re: 13
It varies.
Are you familiar with Counterpunch? There’re a number of folks of Jewish background who are featured at that site. Having a Jewish background doesn’t prevent one from being critical of Israel, or supportive of the US. In the example of Counterpunch, one can find ample criticism of the US and Israel.
I think it’s fair to say that a good number of Jews get jumpy at questions like the one you pose. Israel is a Jewish state. Hence, national identity and religion are clearly defined. As someone else expressed at this discussion, it’s not so out of the realm for Jewish-Americans to support Israel in a way not so different from how other Americans support the country of their origin.
BTW, many Jews feel a closer kinship with the land where they or their families came from other than Israel. This aspect makes perfect sense. Israel as a modern nation state is relatively new, with many Jews having lengthier ties to other nations. Many Jews don’t have relatives, while having relatives in other countries.
Many Jews have non-Jewish roots as well. For lack of better terms, this “dilutes” their “Jewishness.” Once again, this isn’t uncommon with others.
I understand that one of the reasons why ethnic Moldovans in the disputed territory of Pridnestrovie (Trans-Dniester) aren’t so pro-union with Moldova is because many of these stated ethnic Moldovans are actually of a mixed background (inclusive of Slavs) – more so than the Moldovans in Moldova. This is coupled with the two areas (Moldova and Pridnestrovie) having a somewhat different historical upbringing.
16 Comment by Michael Averko on 7 January 2009:
Putting aside some of the pundits regularly featured in mass media, I suspect a good number of folks would be surprised to know that there’re Jews who have views which on a number of issues would fall in a paleocon category.
This point should be well understood if it’s accepted that mass media can prop a certain image, while downplaying other realities.
This relates to a previous point I made about the neocons. For clarity sake, saying that Jews are well represented within neoconservatism should also note that most Jews aren’t neocons.
17 Comment by Red Phillips on 7 January 2009:
“I am pretty sure that the average Christian American would say he is American first and then Christian.”
woodcutter, I certainly hope that a Christian in America would consider himself a Christian first and an American second. I hope he would consider himself a Christian first and a husband second. A Christian first and a father second. What could possibly be more important than one’s relationship to the Creator of the universe?
18 Comment by TJF on 7 January 2009:
Jewish Leftists are anti-Israel in the same way they are anti-American: They repudiate all natural loyalties because they are sick, morally, intellectually, and spiritually. The moderates I met in Israel are of an entirely different cast of mind.
Let me say an amen to Brother Red. There are sound prudent reasons to retain Israel as an ally, while keeping its leaders on a short leash. Of course, the neoconservatives who started the war with Iraq and ran the DOD are on record urging Israel to withdraw from its American alliance, which impedes their freedom of action. Yes, the Zionists stole the land and mistreated the people. And yes, the children of the people whom they have robbed and oppressed–and their supporters–would like to kill us all. If the Arabs ever get their act together–not a likely scenario–they would drive the Israelis into the sea. In the meantime, a prudent and cautious alliance with Israel against our Muslim enemies probably makes sense. But it doesn’t matter what I think or any of you think about this, because we have no power and never will have. As our friend Dr. Red advises, let us get our priorities straight. As subjects of the US government–the term citizen is laughably irrelevant–we owe obedience to our authorities while at the same time reserving our higher loyalties to our God and our kith and kin.
19 Comment by woodcutter on 7 January 2009:
Michael Averko, Red Phillips, TJF, thank you for your comments. It does one good to be reminded not to generalize. If only the masses could see clearly through the generalizations that so often create conflict. Thanks again.
20 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 7 January 2009:
What Dr. Fleming wrote in the first paragraph of his last post is true about all Leftists: “They repudiate all natural loyalties…” That is why the Left is so enraptured with Barack Obama, a man with no ties with the historic nation, a man with few ties with the historic American people. We on the true Right can and should debate the issues of the day but always remember that there is a common enemy on the Left that hates us so dearly.
21 Comment by Bill Wilder on 7 January 2009:
I suppose all know it, or can find it, but I still thought I’d post the link to the Farewell Address. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Israel’s actions bring to mind a paraphrase of the old saw that it’s worse than a crime it’s a mistake. Like our disaster in Iraq, Israel can do nothing with Gaza except expend and undermine herself.
Reading MidEast news is like watching Groundhog Day. More dead innocents. More crazed terrorists. More ghoulish military spokesmen and woman santizings the killing of innocents. More pundits or self-professed liberationists using stupid analogies and sophistry to justify killing innocents.
All to illustrate the point that there is nothing an ordinary American can do, except refrain from endorsing either side’s killing of innocents. And to try and ignore it from distracting us from our actual duties.
22 Comment by Philip Smith on 7 January 2009:
I think the key here is simple: what does she mean by “us”?
23 Comment by H.F. Wolff on 7 January 2009:
18TJF:
“There are sound prudent reasons to retain Israel as an ally,…”.
Sir, with all due respect, would you care to list, say, three or four of these prudent reasons? Because I can think of a similar number of reasons why the USA should be at war with Israel.
Indeed, the USA has fought wars over trivialities compared with the criminal activities of Israel in the USA.
H.F. Wolff
24 Comment by Sean Scallon on 7 January 2009:
Neocons like Miss Charen, who’s only notable contribution to the public debate is the mud and dreck and lies she throws at paleos, can spare me the Anti-American diatribes now that we know where he true loyalties lie. Someone should ask her if she supports dual citizenship for Israelis and why such a standarnd should be denied to Mexicans under similar circumstances?
25 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 7 January 2009:
#3. Dr. Phillips, how true. If this were a real country we would not be involved in ANY conflict between two bunches of foreigners. However, as our rulers have committed us to the almost unlimited military, economic, and diplomatic support of Israel, we ought at least to have the right to criticise how it spends our money.
26 Comment by Robert on 7 January 2009:
Dr. Wilson,
But haven’t you heard that “real conservatives” view all of this as great opportunity?” In a interview with CNBC Monday, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that President-Elect Barack Obama’s most important, or defining task would be the creation of “a new world order.” I can hear the cheers from Republicans all across America. Their only regret? They picked the wrong horse.
27 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 7 January 2009:
Allowing Israel to be created was one of the worst mistakes that the West ever blundered into, comparable to the decision to fund research into atomic fission.
BUT… now that Israel exists, she has to be taken as a political and historical reality. And she has to be dealt with in a manner that comports with our national interest. Politics doesn’t waste time complaining over spilt milk.
Here’s one major problem: if we simply cut Israel off and let her perish, we only confirm, indelibly, in the minds of the rest of the world that America is a duplicitous and totally untrustworthy ally. We’ve already betrayed the Eastern Europeans, the South Vietnamese, the Chinese in Taiwan, the Kurds, the Shah of Iran.. need I go on?
So it makes sense for us to temporize on the question of Israel. But it certainly would also be in our national interest to at least attempt to appear somewhat more even-handed.
I’m not saying that the Moslems aren’t our historical enemies. They are. But even one’s enemies have a few valid things to say on occasion.
28 Comment by Beau on 7 January 2009:
To those supporting Israel’s current homicidal foray into Gaza, ask yourself this: Would it have been right for The United States to have remained uncritical and supportive of The United Kingdom had they taken similarly high-handed action, cavalier of innocent civilian life in going after the IRA? Or, is Israeli thuggery acceptable because the victims are brown and Muslim?
29 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 7 January 2009:
I don’t think anyone on this thread is defending Israel’s savage and disproportionate attacks in Gaza. If Slim shows up it might be different, but all some of us are saying is that Realpolitik in this situation is a bit tricky. Israel was a mistake, but right now, for better or worse, she’s OUR mistake.
30 Comment by H.F. Wolff on 7 January 2009:
Ahhh, but one a mistake is recognized the prudent corrects the mistake, cuts his losses, and proceeds on to greener pastures.
Only imbeciles and lunatics carry on with the same action while hoping for change. (credited to Einstein).
H.F. Wolff
31 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 7 January 2009:
You won’t read much about it in the MSM, but Gaza Marine ia a large offshore gas field (google it). Hamas want to develop that gas, sell it and make some money. This means re-negotiating the Oslo Accords. Israel wants all the gas for itself. Whether they’ll go as far as driving out every last Philistine from Gaza, I can’t say. But if I was an Arab there I’d fight for what was mine, too.
32 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 7 January 2009:
H.F. Wolff @ 30
I meant a mistake of the sort that happens when you get drunk one night and knock up your girlfriend. The “mistake” is a baby that you have to be responsible for.
33 Comment by J Meng on 7 January 2009:
H. F. Wolff, @23, Sir, I hope you are a patient man, because there are not three prudent reasons (there’s not even one) to retain Israel as an ally. I have asked, several times (and not just on this website), what is the benefit to the U.S. of its alliance with Israel, and I’ve never gotten an answer.
Joseph Salemi, @32, not a bad analogy. However, where I come from, after the baby has reached the age of 21, he’s on his own.
34 Comment by J Meng on 7 January 2009:
TJF, @18, Sir, you said, “Let me say an amen to Brother Red. There are sound prudent reasons to retain Israel as an ally, while keeping its leaders on a short leash.”
In October of 2001, reported by Israel radio (Kol Yisrael) “Peres warned Sharon…that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger israeli interests and ‘turn the US against us.’” To which Sharon responded, “every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.”
In light of this, Dr. Fleming, how do we keep (or have we kept) the leaders of israel on a short leash?
35 Comment by H.F. Wolff on 8 January 2009:
God love the internet, and keep it strong and free!
There is no better way than this to slaughter sacred cows… Thou shalt not keep false…
I think, Dr. Fleming, that you should at least try to answer these questions as to what the benefits to the USA are.
I guess the writers at TAKIMAG could not stand the critiques and simply stopped them… Intellectual wimps!
At least CHRONICLES still permits commentary most of the time even though authors of threads are unable to defend their position.
How about it, Dr. Fleming?
H.F. Wolff
36 Comment by Beau on 8 January 2009:
Joseph Salemi wrote: “Israel was a mistake, but right now, for better or worse, she’s OUR mistake.”
Indeed, and the hatred that ensues to America from our current ill thought out policies will be our children’s and grandchildren’s, Jewish and gentile, to deal with.
37 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 8 January 2009:
If current demographic trends continue, Jews will be a minority within Israel within fifty years, maybe even less. Under those circumstances Israeli policies will either change to suit the new majority, or will become so blatantly undemocratic and ethnocentric as to be utterly indefensible in the eyes of everyone, including that particularly stupid group of persons known as U.S. Senators.
And before anyone starts smiling, recall that the exact same thing is happening in every white nation.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
38 Comment by Bob Johnson on 8 January 2009:
Yeah. That’s one of the main reasons it’s so important to get California out of the United States.
An arrogant Judge there came so close to banning Home Schooling, which is of course a practice favored far more by whites due to their tending to care more about their children than the other racial groups you’ll find in an area.
I can understand why the parents fought the ruling (it was overturned), it’s a hell of a thing to leave a place in what amounts to exile…
But at the same time, there’s just no future for half-way decent white people over there. So why delay the inevitable?
And if Jerry Brown manages to force gay marriage on them, against the twice expressed will of the voters, the social conservative ethnobase of white people in California will probably enter into an even quicker collapse than it would’ve otherwise.
Whittling the white population down to the barren, as the hispanics expand.
The next Governer almost has to be Villaraigosa, right?
39 Comment by pablo H on 8 January 2009:
Regarding Taki – given the quality of the comments on his site, I wasn’t surprised when he pulled the plug. Between the neo-Nazi’s and the hobby-horse riders, intelligent remarks were few and far between.
As for Israel. Yes, we should support her since 10 million Jews in this country pay taxes and care for her – deeply. But let’s not not be silly, from a honest view of US interests, Israel had always been Dead-weight. That’s why George C. Marshall was against our recognizing it in 1948. And if tomorrow all the Jews in Israel were to post a “Gone out of Business” sign and move to Miami Beach and Brooklyn the USA would be much better off. Israel adds nothing to our security or wealth – just the opposite – but to say so is impolite and dangerous.
40 Comment by MGB on 9 January 2009:
Pablo,
Your comments contradict themselves. You write, “As for Israel. Yes we should support her…” Then later you write, “Israel adds nothing to our security or wealth.” So which is it? Support something that gives you no benefit? Or support something that some ethnic groups (you cite Jews) “care for…deeply.” With that mindset we would be supporting every race, clan, and tribe on the planet, with the exception of the Palestinians since they would still be verboten in polite, pro-Israel American chit chat (sorry for the redundancy).
Neutrality is our only hope. Otherwise don’t complain on the next 9/11.
41 Comment by pablo H on 9 January 2009:
MGB, in the big scheme of things Israel is not important. The alliance is a negative to a USA – but not a large one. Balanced against that is practical politics. We live in a democracy and 10 million Jews consider support for Israel one of the most -if not the most- important issue.
So yes, we need to support Israels right to exist but as Dr. Fleming states we need to control the leaders and keep them on a firm leash. But lets not kid ourselves that our Israeli alliance and the billions of aid benefit the USA – we’re doing it to keep the Jews happy. I can’t thing of any other ethnic group in the USA that demands the USA support a foreign country to the extent American Jews do.
42 Comment by D Simmons on 9 January 2009:
Ms. Mercer posts a rebuke to this over at v-dare. Worth reading if for anything she almost admits the double standards. But at least the jews have standards, we white gentile men have allowed our reduction to the point of irrelavancy, of debating trivia. To jews the jewish nation is foremost (generally speaking) and ideology is a tool, white men take ideology as first their families and nation second (Kubrick pointed this out in “Dr. Strangelove”). So while Tom debates a segment of some ideology or policy thereof, we white gentile men have sons who behave like Adam Sandler, daughters like shiksa stereotypes and wives like the vamps of “…Housewives” of shopping, sex or crying fits.
43 Comment by Beau on 9 January 2009:
Pablo H: “I can’t thing of any other ethnic group in the USA that demands the USA support a foreign country to the extent American Jews do.”
Which is precisely why it’s perfectly logical to ask American Jews where their loyalties really lie. If The Pope still ruled north central Italy to ask such a question of Catholics would be appropriate. So, why at the start of the third millenium CE does posing a similar question about Israel automatically make one an anti-Semite?
44 Comment by whatwemaybe on 9 January 2009:
Mr. Piatak,
Do you agree with Mrs. Mercer’s article at Vdare.com today or not?
For example, many on this site and others rightfully support the Serbs and Russians over their Islamic and non-Islamic enemies. But they don’t advocate the US militarily intervene on behalf of Russia or Serbia.
Would it be legitimate for someone to morally support Israel over Palestine in the current war while at the same time oppose foreign intervention? Nick Griffin of the BNP appears to do that.
45 Comment by Robert on 9 January 2009:
@42 “Ms. Mercer posts a rebuke to this over at v-dare. Worth reading if for anything she almost admits the double standards. But at least the jews have standards, we white gentile men have allowed our reduction to the point of irrelavancy, of debating trivia.”
Ilana Mercer is a thoughtful woman who knows how to write and think on her feet,standing on her head, while defending Israel, condemning the American attack on Iraq or the last Israeli invasion of Lebannon. Nothing too shrill or even diplomatic about her, she is fierce and terrible towards her enemies and generous and fair towards her friends. I read her early and often and think she should be read more because even when she may not agree with “paleocons” she never turns into a “neo-con.”
46 Comment by MGB on 9 January 2009:
Pablo,
Again, you contradict yourself. Let me clarify what you keep dancing around. The US has no, zero, nada, zilcho national interests in Israel. We should remain neutral when dealing with Israel and its allies or enemies.
And I think you overstate the number of Jews in the US but let’s go with your 10 million number. You wrote, “We live in a democracy and 10 million Jews consider support for Israel one of the most -if not the most- important issue.” That 290 million other Americans whose interests take a secondary role in your calculus might want to have a say.
Furthermore, your idea of keeping Israel’s leaders on a short leash will exacerbate the Arab world’s view of the US as the attack dog of Israel. Sever all ties other than basic diplomatic relations with Israel now. We lose nothing in the process and we could then remeasure the Arab world’s opinion of us. Frankly, I am looking to avoid another 9/11 which Obama, sorry Osama, reminded us he perpetrated as payback for our lopsided relations with that barren sand pit at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.
47 Comment by Bob Johnson on 12 January 2009:
Very well said, MGB.
On the topic of Tom’s article, one really must wonder why Charen even bothers with this sort of foolery given that the Jews in the Zionist Entity can evidently control the US Government directly, and without deigning to accept the aid of American Jews:
>Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote: Olmert
4 hours ago
JERUSALEM (AFP) — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.
“She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour,” Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.
The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the three-week-old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza where hundreds have been killed.
Fourteen of the council’s 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas.
The United States, Israel’s main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Rice later became the sole abstention.
“In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour,” Olmert said
“I said ‘get me President Bush on the phone’. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care. ‘I need to talk to him now’. He got off the podium and spoke to me.
“I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour.”
Bush has consistently placed the blame for the conflict on Hamas, telling reporters on Monday that while he wanted to see a “sustainable ceasefire” in Gaza, it was up to Hamas to choose to end its rocket fire on Israel.<