Israel

As I have listened and read more and more over the years, I have come to believe that our country's unquestioning support for the Israeli government is counterproductive for us and, in the long run, for Israel.   When Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before a joint session of Congress last spring, Democrats and Republicans alike fell all over themselves trying to see who could give him the most standing ovations.    The media described his reception as "rapturous."    Talk about a bunch of spineless, blow dried "yes men."    And aren't we all smart enough to know what's going on there?    All politicians, Democratic and Republican, want the votes, support and money from the Jewish Americans and others who support the Israeli government unconditionally.   Can you say AIPAC?    As it stands, the leadership of Israel effectively controls the reins of power in the United States.

I have frequently heard the argument that Netanyahu made to Congress: that Israel is America's strongest friend in the region and that Israel has always stood with the United States.   It seems to me that if not for our unwavering, unconditional support for the desires and objectives of whatever leadership happens to be in power in Israel at the time, we would not particularly need a friend in the region.    We give Israel 3 billion dollars a year and substantial other military and civil support.    We facilitated their acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.   What does Israel do for us?    Quick, somebody name something?  

Our uncritical support for the Israeli government constantly has us embroiled in some controversy, military or otherwise.    While I am not unsympathetic to the people of Israel, I do not believe that the best interests of Israel should come before the best interests of the people of the United States of America.   In my judgment, that's exactly the situation we have at present.    In the light of cold, hard realism, I just don't think it's worth it for our country.

It seems to me that many if not most of our security problems in the Twenty-First Century stem from our relationship with the State of Israel.   This support as a practical matter results primarily from the need of politicians of all stripes to insure their own re-election.   The justification for this support runs along several lines.    The State of Israel is said to the be only democracy in the middle east.    They are "like us."   It seems to me that this argument really strains the meaning of the term "democracy."   While our democracy was founded on the fundamental principle of religious freedom and the clear separation of church and state, Israel was founded for the primary benefit of a particular religious group.   This is the State of Israel's defining characteristic.   Non-Jews are to this day not allowed a full measure of citizenship.    This fundamental feature of the government of Israel runs directly counter to a basic feature of the governing principles of the United States.    Under Israeli law some are more equal than others.

Many Americans believe that the Jewish people are entitled to the land now called Israel (and the land called the West Bank or Palestine) because God promised it to them thousands of years ago.    As a person who is decidedly not religious, this justification rings especially hollow to me.    One might remember upon hearing this justification who were the authors of the Old Testament in the first place.   No doubt other religious groups could cite similar promises by their own chosen deities.

The book written a few years ago by former President Jimmy Carter,  Palestine:  Peace Not Apartheid,  seems to me to do an excellent job of laying out the historical facts relating to the Israel/Arab conflicts that have occurred since Israel's founding and recognition by the United Nations in 1947.   President Carter's book makes a good case that most of the blame for the sixty-plus year conflict is due to the Israeli government's consistent intransigence and  refusal to fall back to the pre-1967 boundaries as demanded by the UN and virtually every country in the world.    UN Resolution 242, adopted by the UN with Israel's agreement shortly after the conclusion of the Six-Day War in 1967,  is consistent with the original UN Resolution 181 that initially recognized the nation of Israel and defined Israel's borders.     UN Resolution 242 required Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders.

President Obama has shown some serious political cohones in coming out in favor of Israel returning to the pre-1967 borders with compensating land swaps.   Now if he can back that up by saying to the Israeli government, either get back into your original, legally recognized borders--or--you're on your own.    Here's betting that such a stance by the United States would solve most of the political problems in the middle east post haste.   I predict that President Obama will win a second term in 2012 and that he will thereafter tighten the screws on Netanyahu to encourage Israel to abandon settlements in the West Bank.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Kansas City Star a few years ago along the lines of this blog post.    The anonymous posters on the Star's website severely and almost unanimously took me to task for my stated views.   Several referred to me as antisemitic.    Unfortunately, this is a frequent charge made by Israel's apologists here and abroad.    One does not have to dislike Jews as a group in order to dislike some of the political stances taken by the government of Israel.   One does not have to dislike Jews as a group in order to believe that the leaders of the United States should act in the best interest of this country first and foremost and not in the perceived best interests of the State of Israel first and foremost.   A thoughtful, reasonable person will acknowledge that those are entirely different things.