Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Bloodthirsty Neocons Crave War At All Costs

Hat Tip to Police State U.S.A.

Bush Rejected Iranian Peace Proposal to Recognize Israel in 2003

A couple of things come to mind when I see stories like this. First of all, I never understood what the whole "we must protect Israel at all costs" perspective was all about. I do know that most people who feel very strongly about the protection of Israel will be chomping at the bit to label me, a skeptic of their policy position, as an anti-semite, which they tend to do to their opponents far too often, suggesting to me further that their position is patently irrational. But setting aside the pejorative, ad hominem tactics of this crowd, no one to date has yet been able to explain to me in clear terms why it’s in my interest to fork over my hard earned dollars to prop up reinforce the State of Israel anymore than it would be to do the same for, say, Luxemburg. The closest thing I ever got to a candid answer, and a surprising one at that, was from my fellow blogger Speedothebrief over at the Conservatorium when he explained that U.S. protection of Israel was the global equivalent of "40 acres and a mule" for the Jews – that taxpayers today should be forced to pay reparations to Jews for the tyrannical actions of some other government, in another country, that took place before most of us were even born.

But my own agnostic position aside, the fact remains that many people, mostly Conservatives, have an certain unstated hysteria regarding the protection of Israel. Indeed, most of the focus on continuing military intervention in the middle east centers on Isreal. Even enemies of the American government such as bin Laden point to U.S. policy toward Isreal as a primary motive for their hostilities. So the question needs to be asked. If there was a way to protect Israel, while at the same time reducing the likelihood of armed conflict, wouldn’t that be a win-win situation? So often you hear talking heads for the regime saying things like war is the last resort, and diplomacy needs to be given a chance, and blah blah blah. So when Iran – the same country that we are planning to bomb – offers a proposal that would help secure progress toward a goal, namely the continued preservation of the Israeli state, why shouldn’t it be taken?

One begins to wonder…are Conservatives really just bloodthirsty warmongers? Do they really want diplomacy and peaceful solutions, or are they committed to the continued flexing of American Imperial might to force the rest of the world to do our bidding?

When you read the proposal, the bargain with Iran didn’t seem to be that irrational. In exchange for recognizing Israel and pulling support for armed groups in the region, the U.S. would acknowledge Iran as a bona-fide regional power, and cease all the "axis of evil" rhetoric.

Hell…we coddle communist China, opting to trade with them, hoping to help reform their abysmal human rights record through our economic ties. If we don’t like the repressive, illiberal culture that exists in Iran, why couldn’t the same approach be used?

The only conclusion I can come to is that Conservatives are warmongers, consumed by Imperial bloodlust.


Blogger Drunken Tune said...

Great post! I have too, at times been labeled an anti-Semite for the mere question of Israel's legitimacy - and I was raised as a Jew in a Jewish household! With only a fabricated biblical basis for its existence, I see no reason why the Israeli government should continue to oppress Palestinians. It's all about legitimacy: the United States government, the EU, and the UN claim that Israel is legitimate, because... well... I'm not really sure why, besides the notorious Jewish Mother's Guilt® and a few anecdotes you touch on. Yet, the Israeli government is allowed to terrorize, subjugate, and assassinate its second-class citizens "legitimately," while the Palestinians are labeled "terrorists." The Palestine National Charter, approved in 1968, says "The Palestinian Arab people alone have the legitimate rights to their homeland, and shall exercise the right of self-determination after the liberation of their homeland, in keeping with their wishes and entirely of their own accord." If countries and its inhabitants are to have freedom after WWII, then Israel violates this convention on every point. If the Israeli government was set up our nation's capitol in 1948, we’d be just as defiant today.

”Do they really want diplomacy and peaceful solutions, or are they committed to the continued flexing of American Imperial might to force the rest of the world to do our bidding?” I think it may be more than just imperialism. It’s also the fanatic Might Makes Right, dominionist, xenophobic, power-hungry part of religion transplanted to world politics. At the very least it's spurred our imperialist nature to manifest in our international politices. This is what we get when Diebold elect a man who talks to a sky-god. Besides, the Rapture can only occur, according to Robertson and Falwell, when Israel is destroyed once again.

5:48 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home