Meh Culpa

Dear Madam Blogger: Meh Culpa’s reply to A Soldier’s Mother

“A Soldier’s Mother, a blogger who writes for Arutz Sheva (aka, Israel National News) has posted an article about her distaste for Zbignew Brzezinski, “Why I Never Liked Zbiggy,” which contains a number of errata. I posted a reply on the Arutz Sheva site which may or may not make it into print. I did not address what are in my opinion Israel’s recent war crimes against the Palestinians because there was only so much space and I deemed that opinion would make acceptance of my reply even more unlikely. In any case, here is my reply. I have revised a word or two, plus a little punctuation, but that’s about it.

Dear Madam Blogger

Brzezinski is 81 years old. He wasn’t given a position in the Obama administration because of his age. To say otherwise is an egregious error. Brzezinski also is a respected Democrat, yet Brzezinki’s opinion is only that, an opinion. He’s not speaking in an official capacity. There will be no US attack on Israel. End of story. Get over it.

It’s long been known in the International community that Israel would not obtain the privilege to fly over Iraq … because:

A) when the story first arose, the US still had some “custody” of Iraq and so would become embroiled in such a war begun by Israel, which would make three happening for the US at once. The US forces, depleted under Donald Rumsfeld cannot not tolerate another battlefront without collapsing;

B) allowing Israel to attack Iran could spark a war in the Middle East, making the region more unstable than it already is (a very bad idea);

C) any country that allowed Israel flyover privileges (e.g., Saudi Arabia) would earn the ire of Muslim states around the globe. Note well that the Saudis denied the report in July as did the Israelis. That’s how unpopular the notion actually is.

The US under George W. Bush provided the Israelis with defensive technology. That was a gesture of friendship. You may not like it or think it was enough because you want a war with Iran to be ineluctable, but it’s not in Israel’s best interests to have Arab and Muslim nations banded against them in a war. Nor is it in the world’s best interests, since we could have another global war on our hands. Wasn’t WW I and WW II enough? Must we again have more bloodshed on that scale? I would hope not.

I can remember listening to Old Testament readings in which the Israelis were described as stiff-necked and warlike. I’m sure it’s not always the case, but this constant hankering after war, when it might be possible to win peace, constitutes a prime example of those character traits. However, what I find most fascinating is the conservative* Israelis love-hate relationship with the US. Most Americans have absolutely no idea that their beloved friends despise them so much. But if the manner in which news is reported on this site is any indication, Arutz Sheva contributes to the ethos of drama and victimhood; this news organ evidently loves to whip up the mob against the enemies of Israel. Granted, many people around the world feel great anger towards Israel, but that state of affairs has to do with its behavior towards the Palestinians as well as its seemingly bellicose nature.

As for the the American Jewish community–it is split between old school types who would support whatever Israel wants, no matter what, and newer groups (i.e., J Street) who love Israel but are concerned that Israel’s current policies are not in that country’s best interests. I happen to concur with the latter view and would go further in saying that those policies could lead to Israel’s destruction, which I find appalling, but possible. I am also disappointed and troubled by Israel’s actions / wars against the Palestinians and Lebanon. I don’t think those policies are helpful; I also don’t think they have worked since there is no true peace. I don’t hold the Palestinians innocent by any means, but I don’t think Israel’s policies are doing its country any good.

I grew up loving Israel and now I don’t recognize it. Would the great Golda Meir have approved of using such things as pre-emptive strikes? I think not. She lived with danger herself, but recognized that pre-emptive strikes would lose Israel its friends and allies as well as its international aid. She may have said, “There are no Palestinians,” but If Israel were insecure she would have parleyed with the Palestinians and come to an agreement to keep her country safe.

There is just so much hatred any one nation can survive. At this point, I see Israel becoming less secure because of its own actions. Should there be an internationally unbacked, pre-emptive strike against Iran, which state will no doubt fight back, I see Israel losing even more status** and security, if not provoking an all-out war. A pity. I had such hopes for you.

* Used in American political terms.

** Look at what happened to George W. Bush.

Advertisements

September 21, 2009 Posted by | Democrats, diplomacy, Foreign policy, Geneva Conventions, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Middle East, National Security, Palestinians, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

The Gibson / Palin Interview: Foreign Policy

Just for the record, Sarah Palin knows nothing about current events.

  • She didn’t know Georgia invaded South Ossetia. She thinks Russia’s response was completely unprovoked and she seems to border on a Cold War approach.(It is, of course, more complicated that this, but she doesn’t even know the basics.)
  • She didn’t know that the US just told Israel that we wouldn’t help them bomb Iran.
  • The US government, under Bush 43, has refused to give Israel the go-ahead to fly over Iraq and has refused to allow Israel to buy refueling tanker planes from Boeing. The US told the Israelis that they can have some fancy radar we’ve developed and we’ve even bought it for them already.

  • Palin didn’t know what the Bush doctrine is. It took her something like three questions from Gibson to figure it out.

* * *

MORE…

  • Palin believes the US energy situation is the cornerstone of foreign policy / national security, the Alaska pipeline being her version of energy independence that will somehow protect the US from Russia and other not-so-friendly countries.
  • That’s her sole credential.

    GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

    PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

    Oh, brilliant.

  • Palin believes Iran’s development of a nuclear reactor is a direct nuclear threat to Israel.
  • Sarah seems unaware that Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has talked about religious reasons for not having nuclear weapons: “Our religion prohibits us from having nuclear arms and our religious leader has prohibited it from the point of view of religious law. It’s a closed road.”

    If Ahmadinejad really plans on wiping Israel from the map militarily he’s going to need cooperation from other countries in terms of safe conduct, fly zones, etc. It is not clear as yet that he could obtain everything he needs. And, in any case, he’s not really the one in charge. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is. Khamenei issued a fatwa against the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons that was cited by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005. I have seen no evidence that this is a false fatwa, such as the one in France in 2005.

    Also, from Global research:

    The Iranians are at an elementary stage in the processing of uranium, not even reaching the point of uranium enrichment, which in turn will take still a number of years, and overcoming many complex technical problems before it can build a bomb. There is no factual basis for arguing that Iran represents a nuclear threat to Israel or to the US forces in the Middle East.

    Israel has been threatening to bomb Iran because of this perceived nuclear threat since at least 2006, but hasn’t done so. What’s up with that?

    The only country to benefit from Israel’s bombing of Iran would be Israel, and even that wouldn’t work because it would provoke all-out war against Israel by other countries in the Middle East.

  • Palin doesn’t know what the Cold War was.
  • Definition of Cold War: A state of political tension and military rivalry between nations that stops short of full-scale war

    PALIN: … We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also.

    Without a shot fired? Oh, boy. Thanks.

  • Palin still mentions that her son’s brigade is going to Iraq.
  • I wish she’d shut up about that. If she knows for sure where he’s going, she shouldn’t say anything. But, in general, you don’t know where they’re going. And you keep your mouth shut until you’re told it’s OK to open it.

  • Palin also thinks “God’s plan” for the world has something to do with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I wonder if this means she would intend to spread that around, like Bush 43 did. OMG.

September 12, 2008 Posted by | 2008 presidential race, Economy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iraq, Israel, politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment