July 1, 2004
OVERVALUING ISRAEL:
SPEAKING THE UNSPEAKABLE: UNCOMFORTABLE REALITIES (RICHARD REEVES, June 24, 2004, Universal Press Syndicate)
President Bush and many other politicians of both parties prefer the "values" argument because that way we do not have to talk about our determination to use military power to guarantee access to oil -- maintaining an archipelago of military bases in Muslim countries -- and our unquestioning support of Israel no matter what it does.On radio, "Mike" refined that thought, saying that people out there do not hate us because of what we are but because of what we do. President Bush and many other politicians of both parties prefer the "values" argument because that way we do not have to talk about our determination to use military power to guarantee access to oil -- maintaining an archipelago of military bases in Muslim countries -- and our unquestioning support of Israel no matter what it does.
We no longer even pretend to be an honest broker in the Middle East. We are seen as one with Israel by people who have always wanted to destroy Israel.
So, in other words, it is values. All we'd have to do to buy peace is sell out an ally, one of the only democracies in the region. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 1, 2004 10:50 AM
So now we have Richard Reeves sounding like Ralph Nader, who sounds like Pat Buchanan, who sounds like Hosni Mubarak or Yassir Arafat, who are in turn nearly indistinguishable from Noam Chomsky or Arundati Roy; together Far Right and Far Left are fusing into a worldwide, seamless mass of anti-Semitic moonbattery.
Posted by: Mike Morley at July 1, 2004 11:11 AMI do hope we have this debate in the Presidential election.
To the extent that he's said anything coherrent, Kerry has flirted with the idea that our strategy in the middle east is too ambitious in that they will never embrace democracy and trying to force them to represents strategic overreach. This is a muddled version of the same argument.
I'm not even sure my side would win this debate with the electorate, but it's worth having. Perhaps Nader will force the issue.
Posted by: JAB` at July 1, 2004 11:26 AMThe real frustration of our potential allies in the Arab world (sorry, I keep forgetting that Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan are allies) is that the end of Israel is so close, they can smell it.
Except that, except that....
But steadfastness will overcome that too.
After all, can the US stay resolute forever? It must go the way of Europe. It's only reasonable that it should. And the signs, now, are manifest.
Steadfastness! Within 20 years, inshallah. Maximum....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at July 1, 2004 11:29 AMThe day is coming when an American President will say one of two things: "An attack upon Israel will be considered an attack upon the US, and will bring a full retaliatory response", or "We have done all we can for you, Mr. Prime Minister, and do not use your nuclear weapons".
We know which one Kerry would pick today; we don't have to wait.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 1, 2004 11:34 AMRichard also was the one in the late fall of 2001 wrote a column about the impending disaster in Afghanistan that unfortunately didn't come out until two days after the U.S. had begun its rout of Taliban forces. But outside of a few places on the Internet like Andrew Sullivan's site, no one ever called in on that prognosticating boondoggle.
Posted by: John at July 1, 2004 1:03 PMI've never quite understood the believe/do argument. The way I was raised, if you believed or said one thing and did another, you were a hypocrite.
Posted by: Rick T. at July 1, 2004 2:31 PMConsidering what the original 'honest broker' was up to, maybe we wouldn't want that label anyhow anyway.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 1, 2004 4:19 PM