We are really talking about two different Israels you know. The first is the Israel of our hearts: Eretz Yisroel, home, the land we have tried to return to for several thousand years. This is a rightous place where God and justice are served.
There's another Israel, though, right beside the first one. This is a geo-political nightmare located in a sea of enemies and governed by fanatics who are as unable to compromise or negotiate as Hamas or Hes b'Allah. We tell ourselves that, "Massada will not fall again." Unless someone comes up with a solution, it will.
Right now Israel has no other ally than the United States. The latent and sometimes overt anti-Semitism of the European world is not going to go away. Sehal Africa is partly Muslim and partly Christian and partly animist. There is no help for the Jews there. South America was and is a haven for Nazis and their children. The more to the left South American leaders lean, the more anti-Semetic they become.
So we come to the United States; Israel's only friend and supporter in the world. The geopolitical questions one must ask about American support is: How much will America pay for Israel's survival and how deep does that support go in the American population? Change the questions slightly: how many American men and women will America be prepared to lose in defense of an intransigent and arrogant Israel? We currently have our armies scattered all over the place and are fighting active hot wars in two places. Israel's military superiority is lessening year by year. At the moment when Israel's very existance is at stake, will Congress or the President commit thousands of American lives to defending a bunch of Jews? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! Hard to tell! I can hear my neighbors, though, and our media too, asking in many different ways, "Why are American boys and girls dying for them?"
We don't need to postulate a war, though. The U.S. remains totally dependant on Arab and South American and African oil. Can you imagine an oil boycott of the United States, supported by
BP and American oil companies as happened in '73, driving the price of oil to $150 to $200 a barrel? The price of bringing the oil back down under $100 would be the abandonment of Israel and support for the "just and legitimate claims of the poor Palastians." How many Americans would be willing to see their standard of living threatened to support Israel?
I could go on for many more paragraphs. I won't! I love the Israel of my heart. I still have Israeli bonds from the '73 war in my safety deposit box. I can't love Netanyahu's Israel. I don't think it can survive the military, economic and demographic forces against it. I will weep.
Red Baron said...Barry's comments are very serious, thoughtful, and passionate. If Israel is "arrogant", perhaps it is a position born out of Jewish history. After all, if all the world supports their enemies, Israel's supposed "arrogance" is a classical form of defense by individuals as well as by countries. Is not Iran arrogant? Is not N.Korea arrogant? Is not Turkey and France arrogant? Is not Bin Ladin arrogant? If we are calling for Obama to take a more "kick ass" stance against BP, how can one blame Netanyahu's Israel's stance against its detractors and fanatic terrorist enemies who are much more threatening than an oil slick. What Jew would want a "pussy cat" leader in that country. I'm not one of them. Remember the patriot who said, "My country, right or wrong." May God bless and protect the two greatest democracies in the world--right or wrong--the United States and Israel.
I didn't realize there was a size limit. Thank you for your courtesy in posting my comments as you did.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought, old friend, Is Iran arrogant toward Russia or North Korea toward China? Spitting in your ememies eye is a good thing. It's probably not a good idea to announce new apartments in East Jerusalem while your only ally's vice president is visiting. And didn't your buddy Shakespeare say something about being purer than ceasar's wife?
"I am such a tender ass, if my hair do but tickle me, I must scratch." (Midsummer Night's Dream)
ReplyDeleteCaesar's wife must be above reproach.
ReplyDeleteI have never permitted anti-Semitism to flourish or even exist wherever I was. Even the most aggressive Mafiosi and the reddest of necks are polite and courteous to my beloved wife.
However, anti-semitism, not just anti-Israeli sentiment, is stronger than I can remember since the '30s. We must all do whatever we can to squelch the ugliness.
This is important stuff. Have we reached the critical time in history where the world, in essence, says, right or wrong, Israel shall not be? This is chilling but I share Barry's cold analysis. Somebody better realize the collision course of this dilemma and do something constuctive. But who?
ReplyDeleteVery interesting and cogent comments, but all can not be answered at once; so,PB, wives tend to be like that, but Caesars do roam...BF nice to hear your voice again. Who? you ask. Well, when the "collision" comes, so will Armageddon
ReplyDeleteand a nuclear driven WWIII. The sea is calm, until the wind blows.
Bob -- you open a facinating new issue -- "Right and Wrong." In my admittedly cynical world view, the side that wins is always right. This is because the story is always told by the winners. In Texas, evolution is losing because people too dumb to breath have won -- democratically, I might point out.
ReplyDeleteI wish we all lived close enough together s that we could sit down with a good coffee cake and a big pot of coffee and talk about all of this. Norm -- if you invite us all, I'll be.
Also, Norman, even though I started it with my, "Purer than . . ." quote I am NOT going engage in a Shakespeare quoting contest with you . I surrender.
Yes, the victors write history in the short run. BUT, historically, the victors have not stayed in power for very long. As in the Hegelian dialectic, the pendulum swings back and forth and "truth" is relative to whomever is on top at the moment. Poor Socrates!
ReplyDeleteVae Victis "woe to the vanquished," quoted by Livy. Meaning "Losers, weepers." But, Brennus, a chief of the Gauls in 390 BC when arranging terms of peace, the Romans complained that the Gauls were using excessive weights in measuring the amount of gold the Romans were to pay, Brennus threw his sword among the weights, exclaiming, "Vae victis," meaning that he, not they, was dictating the terms. And so, the beat goes on.
ReplyDelete