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.