Did Obama throw Israel under the bus?
Lee Smith says he did.
Smith will then write a column arguing just the opposite next week. Should be interesting.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Lee Smith says he did.
Smith will then write a column arguing just the opposite next week. Should be interesting.
I’m pretty sure there is no longer room under the bus for Israel….
Jenn of the Jungle:
Israel is rather small.
And it’s a very big bus.
Neo, the link doesn’t work for me unless I take off the redirect (the part of the address up to the “tabletmag” main address).
To the article itself: This is a very arrogant (and from my religious believer’s point of view, blasphemous) article, in its assertion that Israel without U.S. backing is doomed. It mentions the airlift in 1973 but fails to recall the War of Independence (1947-9), where no American aid was given (in fact, the administration placed an embargo on U.S. military shipments to Israel), but the fledgling state nevertheless managed against five Arab armies.
On the general issue of foreign entanglements: There are many good reasons to avoid them, and there also bad reasons. One good reason today is America’s in deep financial trouble. One bad reason is to appease the Muslims. I uphold the right of any state to do as it wishes with its own money, but appeasement on another state’s expense is interventionism. Compared to the Left’s stance of “We give Israel money if it pulls the curtain on the settlements,” unconditional cessation of aid together with leaving Israel to do as it wishes is far better.
A caveat: If you think I’m voicing support of Ron and Rand Paul, then I’m not. The trouble is there are far too many interventionists in isolationist clothing; I’m not convinced the Pauls would cease the appeasement after yanking off the aid. They share with the Leftists the misguided idea that the U.S. has brought events like 9/11 upon itself, and if they share that then they can also partake of the idea that appeasement on Israel’s expense would be the way to stopping terrorism.
ziontruth: I’m not sure why the link doesn’t work for you. It works for me when I click on it.
As for the rest, Smith is planning to debate himself. This is Part 1. Part 2 will argue the opposite.
Even if Israel can survive without US financial aid (and it obviously can), I wonder how dependent it is on us for ammunition and spare parts for military equipment. Given the history of the relationship between the countries, I’d guess that dependence is considerable.
Would Obama cut off the supply of ammo and spares to an Israel fighting for its life? Given *his* history, I don’t think that possibility can be ruled out.
I think Obama is more than willing to throw Israel under the bus, but he has to wait until 11/7/12 (assuming he wins). Timing is everything.
As far as Obama’s concerned he’s already thrown Israel under the bus.
To be sure, up until now, Congress (along with a desire to be a two-term president) has not allowed him to act entirely as he would wish.
This is not necessarily to Obama’s disadvantage, since he can always claim that the “Israel Lobby” is preventing him (as it prevented his predecessors) from achieving peace in the Middle East.
When it becomes clear to Obama that he is not reelectable (even if it ought to be clear already)—when he realizes he will have nothing to lose—he will finally “act out” at the first convenient opportunity, Congress be damned.
This will have to occur some time between now and the end of 2011.
Israel’s neighbors, likewise, understand that the ideal time for them to “act out” is between now and the end of 2011.
neo,
Must be a problem with my browser. But I figured out, if more people were to have a problem accessing that link, then that might be the solution.
david foster,
To clear a misunderstanding: I don’t want the U.S.-Israel relationship to be ended, I just want it to turn from one of favoritism to one of plain dealing. Israel should continue obtaining weaponry and spare parts from the U.S., but only in straight business deals. Favors become, in the hand of a Carter, James Baker or Obama, tools for strong-arming.
By the same token, should the U.S. be indisposed (heaven knows how all the industries in the U.S. have suffered under this administration’s Cloward-Piven rampage), Israel is to obtain supplies from other sellers (again, in plain dealing only). Furthermore, Israel possesses a developed military industry that can manufacture quite a lot by itself. I’m not saying the downsizing of the U.S.-Israel relations wrought by Obama is going to be easy for Israel, but it’s not a death-blow as Smith suggests.
I’m far more bothered by the continuing domination of Israel’s media and policy-making by the Left than by outside events. The Israeli Jewish Left got decimated in the 2000s in the street, but in the media it’s still partying like it’s 1993. As America is now learning from first-hand experience, an assault from within is far more deadly than one from without.
> They share with the Leftists the misguided idea that the U.S. has brought events like 9/11 upon itself,
I pretty much concur with this assessment, at least in the case of Lew Rockwell, and, by association, that somewhat militantly libertarian wing of the APaulling.
I had some e-mail interactions with him (Rockwell) ca. 2004, and there’s no question he’s of this stripe.
I personally think he’s a poster child for the notion that there is no facet of human endeavor which someone, somewhere, cannot take and run completely off the end of the earth with.
In his case, non-interference in external events on the national scale.
The whole non-entanglement idea worked fine in the 1800s when we had two big moats protecting us, the subtle support/protection of the British Navy, and very little worth stealing that would pay for carting it all the way back to “wherever they came from”.
This is no longer the case —
1) We are far and away the richest nation in the world. Lots worth stealing.
2) Those moats are 3″ rivulets nowadays.
3) There are plenty of people/nations/groups who would love to “count coup” by striking a blow against us and get away with it — for no other reason than the prestige it would garner them.
There should be limits to our interventionism:
1) it should be clearly related to our interest, or at the explicit request of a major subset of the peoples involved (Darfur would be wrong, unless a major proportion of those in Darfur were in favor of our assistance)
2) we clearly would have to go in with as much force and determination to complete the job as needed. The alternative is Vietnam.
3) Corollary to 1 — if there is a clear, direct, and immanent threat to our well-being, such as Saddam represented.
> he can always claim that the “Israel Lobby” is preventing him (as it prevented his predecessors) from achieving peace in the Middle East
Laughable.
It takes TWO to make peace. It only takes ONE to make war.
There are hence two ways to create peace in the ME:
1) Eliminate one of the two parties (I think it’s safe to say that genocide is unacceptable? Either of Israel or of Islam?).
2) Make both of the parties amenable to the notion of peace.
Obama is clearly not making any strides to the latter, but he does certainly have lots of encouragement for the former.
No one — REPEAT: NO ONE — is going to get any peace in the ME until someone reforms Islam. Bush (possibly) initiated the process. We now need a string of PotUSes who will follow through on that process by attacking the basis of fundamentalist Islam (and that doesn’t mean solely –or even “mostly” — by military means).
The Big 0 is not equipped with the means — mental, political, emotional, or social — to accomplish that goal.