I’m not against the U.S. being an ally of Israel, and in almost every case I think we’re generally on the right side with them in most issues. But I wonder about the thought behind giving unconditional support to Israel. I wouldn’t endorse it for our closest ally, England, much less anyone else.
I think that with regard to the current situation Bush apparently realizes that the bloodthirsty base of his has gotten us into trouble and all their cable news bluster amounts to squat, so the way to end this thing is not to be an ignorant s.o.b. like their usual tactics and methods.
Here’s my quick thought. Why does Israel need aid after 58 years? Surely we could wean them off. Of course the funders for Hezzbollah, Hamas and the PLO would have to stop too….
So Hamas and Hezbollah enter Israel and kidnap Israeli soldiers. What is the appropriate response? I am not an expert on the Geneva Conventions, but I think Isreal is justified in their response.
I will sleep better at night knowing Ollie doesn’t mind being allies with the JOOOOS!!!
Its only people who are truly antisemetic in their hearts who feel the need to project so strongly.
Watch it, Doug. Pedro will call you a Nazi for that kind of talk.
No nation deserves our bind allegiance any more than we should expect the world to be blindly loyal to us. Just as we can become saddled with a group of dangerous corporatist cowboy lunatics, so to can Israel suffer under the leadership of extremists. While the larger meme of Israel being justified in defending iself is something I can easily get behind, the fact that often their response to aggression from their neighbors has been an all out assault on both military and civilian targets regardless of actual merit is simply unacceptable. I also find their treatment of the Palestineans in occupied territories to be unacceptable.
As for the current situation, I get the feeling that the recent kidnappings and missile attacks are being used as a pretext to initiate a larger conflict with Syria and Iran, potentially dragging the U.S. into the fray. What, an excuse to attack Syria and Iran, two favorites on the neo-con hit parade? Why I am sure Bush will do everything he can to get the Israelies to pull back to give calmer heads a chance. John Bolton has already veteod a U.N. call for all sides to cease hostilities, not just Israel. Why? Does anyone really think that Lebanon has the military or police force necessary to clamp down on Hezbollah? The country has been fractured badly enough by civil war and the recent elections which effectively broke with Syria left a government only holding onto a tenuous majority at best. Why couldn’t Israel go to the Lebanese government and demand action and support for Israel strikes against Hezbollah? That way the government might be able to actually help reduce civilian casualties and what’s more, and this is important, they could leverage the situation to avoid the appearence to detractors of being an Israel/U.S. tool (nobody serious can argue that the Israeli army can’t whip the living shit out of any of their neighbors, so an “offer” for cooperation would be understood as clearly being an “or else” proposition). As for Iran supplying Hezbollah, why would they encourage Hezbollah to attack Israel just when the international community is pressuring them to open up about their nuclear program? Maybe they are thinking they can leverage their influence with Hezbollah to get the West to make some concessions. Maybe, but that’s quite a risk considering there has been speculation for months that it would be Israel that would strike Iran over its nuclear efforts and not the U.S. (or would at least be the first, if not the last).
Nope, something much bigger is being engineered here.
And you know this is going to be the new “can’t trust the Dems on security” issue in the Fall with all the ususal cries of anti-semitism that go hand in hand with holding Israel to some sort of reasonable standard. DCPanic made that clear with the blatant attempt to turn the issue into a question of supporting the “Joooos.”