23 April 2010

Will Israel Stand with Us?

On the occasion of Israel's 62nd Independence Day, Caroline Glick lays out the case for America's maintaining its historic alliance with Israel. Glick approaches this question from the American point of view. Among her arguments are the following:
  • "Only Israel [by virtue of its democracy, and unlike other states in the region] ... is a reliable, permanent US ally."

  • "The US and Israel share the same regional foes ... Israel['s] successes redound to the US's benefit."

  • "Israel remains the US's most reliable source for accurate intelligence on the US's enemies in the region."

  • "In both military and non-military spheres, Israeli technological achievements ... are shared with America."

  • "A strong Israel is the best guarantor of ... [America's permanent strategic] interests[: 1] ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region; [2] preventing the most radical regimes [and other entities] ... from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm; and [3] maintaining the US's capacity to project its power to the region."
Ms. Glick's reasoning is impeccable, but unlikely to resonate with the present administration. To see why, consider the following possible interpretations of BHO's behavior toward the Jewish state.
  1. By virtue of stupidity and / or inexperience, he really doesn't understand what he's doing.

  2. He's a people's republic kind of guy bent on transforming the U.S. from a representative democracy into a dictatorship of the proletariat. As such, and like Lenin, he will avoid the distraction of foreign entanglements.

  3. He's a black supremacist who views the Arab-Israeli conflict through the prism of white, European exploitation of non-white, indigenous peoples — hence his sympathy for the Palestinians, whom he regards as the legitimate occupants of what is now Israel.

  4. As imagined by some on the Right, he's a closet Muslim and sees Israel's enemies as his natural allies.
The first possibility, I believe, can be rejected out of hand. Obama may, indeed, be the "affirmative action President," but, his fondness for the teleprompter notwithstanding, he is obviously intelligent and politically adroit. To suggest that he is naive, that he doesn't recognize what the likes of Ahmadinejad, Abbas and Assad are about, is to strain credulity.

The remaining propositions are more plausible. Note that if even one of them holds true, appealing to BHO's sense of American self-interest is beside the point. Obama's America, the one that he is straining to bring into being, bears little relation to its historical antecedents. What is in its interest has little to do with American interests as they have been viewed traditionally, say since the end of World War II.

If one accepts the foregoing analysis, the question is not if Obama will stand with Israel, but rather if Israel will stand with the American people who are just now beginning to appreciate the true nature of "Hope and Change." Israel can do this by being brave, strong and independent, above all, by surviving. The inspiration afforded thereby will allow the real America to again one day be "a light unto the nations." For the present, that task defaults to others.

No comments: