Why does “supporting Israel” mean supporting Israel’s most bloodthristy warmongers?
I continue to wonder if Mrs. Clinton is running for President in 1988. Her AIPAC remarks appear to have been prepared by a younger, angrier John Bolton.
“As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever.We have to combat all these trends with even more intense security and diplomatic cooperation. The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values.”
Touting her “deep, personal commitment” to the “Jewish state,” Clinton then said that “one of the first things I’ll do in office is invite Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] to visit the White House.”
The speech proved that, on matters of Israel, Clinton is “running to the right” of GOP front-runner Donald Trump, as noted by Mondoweiss’ Philip Weiss, who wrote that the remarks were “filled with red meat for Israel supporters” and “contained scant reference to the peace process.”
Iran’s continued aggression?
Benjamin Netanyahu?
I’m sure glad Bernie is “pulling Clinton toward the center”. Imagine where she’d be on American/Israeli exceptionalism without Sanders in the race.
I have never been comfortable with the US left’s antipathy toward Israel. It is one thing to use US aid as leverage to roll back the settlements; it is another to demand an end to all US aid to Israel.
The US (and Hillary) is right to express strong support for Israel. But we also need to make it clear that the settlements and the dream of Greater Israel have to go, and Netanyahu too. Israel now needs its Gorbachev who will roll back the settlements. But as the settlements are rolled back, Israel’s counter-terrorism posture will have to become even more aggressive to meet the resulting security challenges. US policy must be prepared to support Israel’s security response.
The occupied territories were initially a legitimate buffer zone to prevent or blunt the very real threat of cross-border attacks. But as Israel’s strength increased and that of its neighbors weakened, that buffer zone became less of a necessity, and the settlements turned it into a liability and an ongoing affront.
The left has also not acknowledged the existential problem of Israel’s demographic challenge. Israel is first a Jewish homeland, second a democracy. I really don’t know the solution to that.
“Iranian aggression?”
Iran is a patron of Hezbollah, now with new sanction-free money.
“The left has also not acknowledged the existential problem of Israel’s demographic challenge. ”
What? Everyone recognizes that Israel is a democracy in the same way apartheid South Africa was a democracy. What else are we supposed to acknowledge?
I’m having a hard time finding a link from an impartial source to describe Israel’s “demographic time bomb.” Is this really a new concept to you? Basically at some point Jews will become a minority in Israel. Now for us with our US bias, that doesn’t sound like a problem. But the fact is Israel was founded as a Jewish homeland, that is its existential purpose. Everybody would like for Israel to be a pluralistic liberal democracy, including the Israelis themselves, but if democracy no longer serves the founding purpose, something has to give.
While a Jewish State, Israel is not a Taliban-style theocracy. But it is also not South Africa. In fact the only reason there is a demographic time bomb is that non-Jewish citizens have full voting rights. There is every reason for Israelis to legitimately fear that an non-Jewish majority will end israel’s purpose of being a Jewish homeland.
Again, I don’t have a solution. Expelling or restricting Arab/Palestinian voting rights is unthinkable; doing nothing will likely lead to the effective elimination of Israel and the birth of some other kind of Middle Eastern state.
Funny how all the left’s criticism ends up with the elimination of Israel.
“Israel is first a Jewish homeland, second a democracy”
Are these two incompatible? I suppose it depends on how you define democracy. Is there a single definition for a democracy? Of course not. However, it is clear that to sustain a Jewish Homeland reality, it is necessary to limit the rights of certain groups, including at this point, the rights of non-orthodox Jews.
Are there any parallels in the rest of the world – that is another nation where ethnicity governs the rights of citizens? In almost every nation in the world, any person has the ability to become a full fledged citizen of that nation without regards to their ethnicity. I haven’t done any research but I’m guessing that the ones that do not have that feature also have at best a limited democracy.
Literally the only way to ensure a Jewish Homeland is to ultimately remove all non-Jews from the homeland because eventually assimilation will result in a place pretty much like America (and other countries). Israeli groups already attempt to lobby against and prevent intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. They recognize the problem. What they don’t recognize is the futility of such endeavors.
There is no question that Israel exists and will continue to exist. But the handwriting on the wall is that they will eventually not be a Jewish State and all efforts to prevent that outcome is playing Don Quixote, unless they engage in blatant apartheid.
“Funny how all the left’s criticism ends up with the elimination of Israel.”
Funny how Puck’s criticism of the left’s criticism is a ridiculous straw man argument.
What about the 1947 boundaries? Israel can have its Jewish homeland cake, and eat its Democracy cake as well.
“Funny how all the left’s criticism ends up with the elimination of Israel.”
If “funny” meant “logical,” you’d be spot on.
The reason the problem is insoluble is that the “solution” of Europe giving reparations to the Jews for European bad behavior involved taking land from Middle Eastern non-Jews. This would be like saying that since you had stolen stuff from your neighbor across the street, your neighbor next door will have to make up the loss.
If you want to support Israel, go ahead. Just realize that logic has nothing to do with your decision.
May I suggest a book? The Crisis of Zionism by Peter Beinart
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/24/on-the-crisis-of-zionism-why-you-should-read-peter-beinart/
I feel reassured someone else besides us knows who John Bolton is.. Not many of us left.
” Israel can have its Jewish homeland cake, and eat its Democracy cake as well.”
Yeah they can but Israel argues that isn’t really possible because the 47 boundaries do not provide for the security necessary to ensure their survival. They need more land (Greater Israel) because Lesser Israel is not viable. Sort of their own manifest destiny – we must expand or we will not survive.
Back when we were doing it, it was at the expense of the “savages.” In the 21st century, Israel has a challenge portraying the Palestinians as savages, so they have to resort to narratives such as denying the existence of any group named “Palestinians.”
Regardless, considering the amount of aid we are giving many of the contesting groups (especially Israel at ~ $3B per year) we taxpayers have paid for the right to completely ignore what happens over there in light of the never ending story of people killing other people for little purpose, however hard they try to attach the adjective “legitimate” to what they do.
@puck “Funny how all the left’s criticism ends up with the elimination of Israel.”
No it doesn’t.
Simply put, oppression sucks, and that’s exactly what Israel is guilty of doing to Palestine.
All they need to do is stop oppressing. All the rhetoric about how this will somehow lead to their downfall is pure BS. Utter BS.
When has Israeli forbearance ever been rewarded? The US left will always consider Israel to be “oppressing” until it is extinguished. I think we can all agree that the settlements need to go. But does anyone really think that even if – especially if – Israel pulls back to the 1947 borders, Israel’s neighbors will cease to be a security threat? If anything, iwith the `47 borders Israel would need to raise its state of alert and increase its counter-strike and counter-terrorism posture.
Does anyone really think that even if Israel pulls back to the 1947 borders, Israel’s neighbors will cease to be a security threat?
I absolutely believe it. Do you really believe Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are individually or collectively an existentialist threat to Israel? It isn’t still 1973. Not even a little.
You forgot Iran and Palestine/Hezbollah. You are right; the threat isn’t from Arab armies; it’s from terrorist infiltrations in ones and threes, plus the unaffiliated lone wolf attacks. Not to mention the random stovepipe rockets. That isn’t a threat at the same existential level, but no nation will tolerate that without doing everything in its power to stop it. And I would expect it to get worse in a pullback. Every good terrorist knows to attack on the retreat.
Anyway, I think Israel should pull back to the 1947 borders, because it is the right thing to do. Then they should recognize Palestine as a state, and put them on notice that they will bear full responsibility for any acts of aggression or terrorism. Then when Israel responds to an attack, international law and the rules of war would be on their side. But the US left still would call them oppressors.
“But the US left still would call them oppressors.”
That’s the flimsiest rationalization yet.
Let’s agree that pulling back to the 1947 borders recognizing Palestine as a state, and putting them on notice that they will bear full responsibility for any acts of terrorism, are right things to do. Then, when that is all done, allow the all puny, impotent “left” to marginalize itself.
Even if Israel pulls back to 47 borders the threat will continue to exist. However, the threats they face have been overused to justify expansion, when the real reason is Greater Israel.
One of the most significant criticisms must be and is the hypocrisy of what really amounts to ethnic cleansing by a tribe whose history ought to have ingrained into their DNA abhorrence for such behavior. That it has not diminishes that suffering and honestly makes them no better than the perpetrators who visited those atrocities upon them.
In 1948 what the exodus of 700,000 people from what is now Israel, is mostly portrayed by Israel as voluntary. I don’t much care what name you give these people. They lost their homes and their lives. This enforced exodus continues today and encompasses even the nomadic Bedouins.
I’m not sure how you can not call it oppression. Still, Israel ought not to modify its behavior because of external criticism, but it should be responsive to its own espoused principles and values. That they are not is on them, I just wish I didn’t have pay to support their behavior. I also wish they would stand on their own two feet like our real allies do.
Maybe Israel and specifically Netanyahu should act like real allies towards us. They attempted to undermine our foreign policy.with the aassistance of the opposition party. Hillary Clinton had no business attending AIPAC. There are other groups that are more in line with the current President that could use the attention
@puck “Anyway, I think Israel should pull back to the 1947 borders, because it is the right thing to do.”
That’s not going to happen. The wall was put in place specifically to grab valuable water supply sources. If you look at where there are major incursions into Palestinian space, it’s virtually always to grab a water source.
There is no way that Israel will willingly give up those water sources.
An interesting experiment conducted by an independent journalist: AIPAC attendees slam Netanyahu’s racism when they think it’s Trump’s
At least there is some good news – Palestinian support for knifing Israelis is finally beginning to decline:
Even better, a majority now support a two-state solution:
That is good news. “Nonetheless, a majority in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continues to support an armed intifada and continues to believe that such an intifada would help Palestinians achieve national rights in ways that negotiations could not”
because “…61% believes that the two-state solution is no longer practical due to settlement expansion…”
and “…70% oppose, a one-state solution in which Arabs and Jews enjoy equal rights.”
plus “74% believe that the chances for establishing a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel in the next five years are slim to non-existent…”
also “…The percentage of those who are worried that they would be hurt by Israel or that their land would be confiscated or homes demolished stands at 82%…”
furthermore “…82% believes that Israel’s long term aspiration is to annex the lands occupied in 1967 and expel their population or deny them their rights.”
when asked what they really want “….61% said …to recover all or parts of the land occupied in 1967″
but lets acknowledge that 25% want ” to conquer the state of Israel or conquer the state of Israel and kill most of the Jews. ” which means that 75% don’t want to conquer Israel.
So the vast majority of the Palestinians have pretty reasonable aspirations but have no real hope of achieving those aspirations.
I suppose they should extinguish those aspirations themselves or someone will do it for them and go someplace where they might be able to live, just not where they historically lived, cause someone else lives there now.
Most people live where someone else lived before. History moves on.