The author makes the point that the Republicans are so blindly pro-Israel that it would make it difficult for them to muster a coalition to attack Iran. Only the anti-Israel Democrats would be able to do so.
When the US attacked Iraq in 2003, many accused her of doing so because of the efforts of Jewish Lobby to defend Israel. PM Sharon was at pains to say that this war had nothing to do with Israel’s interests and he made clear that he didn’t ask the US to do it and that in fact he was against it. Currently Bibi is at pains to make the case for Attacking Iran an issue for the West and that it should be decided by them as in their best interests. He has never said that he wants the US to take out Iran in order to defend and protect Israel.
Yes, only Nixon could go to China, only Begin could give up the Sinai and, after the disastrous Republican war against Iraq, only the Democrats can wage war on Iran, BUT WILL THEY? Ted Belman
Republicans and Israel: Too much love can kill you
Republicans are saying they’ll attack Iran for Israel’s sake – this might not only prove to be ‘bad for the Jews’ in the long run, but could also come back to haunt the Republicans themselves.
By Chemi Shalev, HAARETZ
In the first Gulf War in 1991 and once again in the war against Iraq in 2003, Israel was asked by the U.S. administration to maintain a “low profile,” in order to avoid the perception that America was fighting with Israel, or on its behalf. Both George Bushes, senior and junior, considered it prudent to relegate Israel to the sidelines – even when it was under direct attack, as was the case in 1991 – in order to help establish international coalitions and to maintain public support for the war, especially in the Muslim world. In both cases, Israel complied.
Of course, such precautions won’t be relevant if a Republican-led U.S. administration should ever contemplate attacking Iran in order to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. After all, the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination – with the glaring exception of the neo-isolationist Ron Paul – are on record as saying that if America attacks Iran, it will be, first and foremost, in order to “save Israel,” as Texas Governor Rick Perry framed it. Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer can already add a brief appendix to their highly-controversial 2007 book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” that will contain a transcript of last week’s CNN Republican foreign policy debate, followed by the letters QED – “which was to be demonstrated.”
Herman Cain said the U.S. would “join Israel” in attacking Iran, as long as the Israelis came up with a credible plan; Newt Gingrich said the U.S. would bomb Tehran only as a “last recourse” but would be happy to team up with Israel in a “conventional” attack; Michele Bachmann has already indicated that the Pentagon should present “war plans” in order to rescue “millions of Israelis who are on the precipice of losing their lives”; Rick Perry said “if we’re going to be serious about saving Israel, we better get serious about Syria and Iran”; Rick Santorum made up for lost time in the debate by declaring later, “I’d be working with Israel and be very clear with Iran that we are preparing a military strike”; Mitt Romney thinks that the answer to Iran is to go to Israel “to show the world we care about that country and that region”; and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, usually the most cautious Republican debater on matters of foreign policy, said “our interest is to ensure that Israel – that Iran does not go nuclear. Our interest in the Middle East is Israel.”
Not Saudi Arabia. Not the Gulf emirates. Not the Maghreb. Not the Horn of Africa. Not a stable Iraq. Not a moderate Egypt. Not the free flow of oil. Not containment of China and Russia. Not Islamic moderation, not even the fight against jihadist terrorism. Just Israel.
Of course, one can well understand why many Jews and Israelis might kvell – Yiddish for beam with joy – at such blanket, unequivocal expressions of love and support for Israel, especially at a time when the saying “the whole world is against us” has become a widely-accepted axiom and President Obama is perceived by many as being indifferent to Israeli interests, at best, if not actually hostile, at worst. But “too much love will kill you”, as Queen’s Brian May once wrote, and these protestations of absolute devotion may come back one day to haunt not only Jews and Israel, but also the Republicans themselves.
As the flurry of anti-Israeli tweets following last week’s CNN debate showed, many Americans were taken aback at what could easily be portrayed as the subornation of American foreign policy to Israeli interests, and the predominance of the Israel-Iran issue over such “minor” foreign policy issues as China, the Arab Spring or the Eurozone debt crisis, which weren’t even mentioned. And even though polls show that a solid majority of Americans support Israel – especially when compared to the Palestinians – it is highly doubtful whether such support stretches to include a conflict that might plunge America and the rest of the world into a political and economic crisis of unprecedented proportions.
Of course, the main reason for the current Republican lovefest with Israel isn’t so much the Jewish lobby, the Jewish vote or even Jewish campaign contributions, but rather the intense courtship of the Israel-adoring Christian Evangelical vote, which is likely to play a pivotal role in the upcoming Republican primaries. These voters view oaths of loyalty to Israel as a qualifying benchmark for all aspiring candidates and they are hardly likely to be deterred by the possibility of conflagration in the Middle East which is, after all, but a necessary dispensationalist end-of-days landmark “on the Road to Armageddon” as Timothy Weber’s 2004 book explains.
But for many, less “Israelocentric” Americans, as well as for the hundreds of millions of people throughout the world who are closely monitoring the Republican race, the unabashed and unqualified Republican embrace of Israel at the expense of other, no-less-critical issues for America’s well-being might very well be seen as confirming the delusional conspiratorial descriptions of rabid Jew-baiters. This might not only prove to be “bad for the Jews” in the long run, but could also come back to haunt the Republicans themselves should the issue of Iran still be on the table if and when one of them is sworn into office on January 20, 2013 (or January 21, as the 20th is a Sunday).
A Republican president, no less than President Obama, would have to contend with widespread opposition among America’s top military brass and its economic and business leaders to a war that could ignite a region-wide conflagration, precipitate a dramatic rise in the price of oil, bring about a sharp increase in the U.S. budget deficit and, potentially, push the economies of both the U.S. and Europe over the edge and into the abyss. Which of the two potential presidents would be more inclined and more capable of weathering such a confrontation is certainly a matter of opinion and debate.
But a Republican president – unlike Obama – would be handicapped from the outset by the inverted “Nixon to China” principle, which makes it harder for right-wing presidents to mobilize public opinion to go to war , and then doubly encumbered by the Bush legacy, internally and in the international arena, where memories of what was widely perceived as the former president’s go-it-alone, devil-may-care cowboyish foreign policy that left America virtually isolated on the world stage haven’t been as thoroughly erased as they appear to have been among America’s conservatives.
And even though there is a compelling argument to be made for U.S. military intervention against Iran in order to safeguard a wide range of vital American interests – including Israel – a Republican president would automatically be judged by his own Israeli-inspired declarations of love and war. The Iranian propaganda ministry, one can rest assured, has already archived the videotape of the Republican debates as a public relations weapon to be drawn just when the time is right.
And while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil countries would be sure to lend Washington discreet tactical as well as financial support under any and all circumstances, the volatile Arab “street”, once maligned as insignificant but now the critical element in determining the future of many Arab regimes, would easily fall prey to anti-Isra eli incitement, as would left-leaning public opinion throughout Muslim World and Western Europe. This would be true in any case, of course, but doubly so if a Republican president was at the helm.
One can argue what true intentions lay behind Obama’s statement in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech that “those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war” – but there should be no doubt that it is Obama who would stand a far better chance than any Republican of mustering international support, of enlisting coalition partners and of minimizing Arab rage in case America goes to war against Iran. In fact, in a twist of irony that is surely bitter for Obama-bashers, it is the president’s perceived distance from Israel and his portrayal as being “even-handed” that places him in a superior position to advance what is indeed, when all is said and done, a critical Israel interest that is still best served by maintaining a judicious low profile rather than by engaging in short-sighted, politically-motivated saber-rattling.
Alan,
You must have joined us recently. I’m not a JINO (Jew in name only). I’m not Jewish — ask Yamit. As for Laura, she and I nearly always agree 🙂 Concerning Michelle Bachman, she is talking about “rescuing” the Jews from the Iranians, as in sending lifeboats to Israel to clear out the Jews and save them from Iranian missiles. Israel does not need “rescuing”. It needs for us to get out of their way, so they can beat the piss out of the Ayatollah.
Laura,
Like you I question the sanity of “Bland Oatmeal”. This isn’t the first time he’s spewed some real nonsense, and I highly doubt it’ll be the last. If anyone is “insane” it is he, other JINOs, and of course the little Muzzie crapping in Lincoln’s house.
And no doubt, this Leftist harridan from Ha’aretz who wrote this b.s.
Obama may well use intervention in Syria as a trigger–to provoke a Syrian-Hezbollah-Iranian attack on Israel, which would provide the pretext for US air attacks on Iran in the context of a rapidly escalating conflict. The administration’s objectives seem to include replacing Assad with a MUslim Brotherhood=dominated “Islamic democracy” and creating conditions that will facilitate an imposed final solution of what used to be called the Arab-Israeli conflict (before the obsession with “Palestine” and the Islamization of the conflict). A combination of an Iranian defeat and large scale destruction in Israel caused by massive missile strikes could be the conditions–for forcing Israel to withdraw to “the Auschwitz Lines” in order to make way for a “contiguous Palestinian state” –yet another “moderate” Islamist entity.
The administration will not rest until an arc or sword of “moderate” Islamism stretches across the region–and into Central Asia. There is no real interest in seeing genuine, secular democracy anywhere–including Iran. A “moderate” mullahocracy is the US/NATO goal.
President Bush had no trouble mustering support for going to war.
Having the most anti-Israel president has not lessened anti-Israel incitement around the world, in fact they have been emboldened in the belief that America doesn’t have Israel’s back. The world’s rabid islamic and leftist anti-semites perceive anyone not actually calling for the obliteration of Israel as being a “Zionist”. Therefore to these deranged people, Obama is no less a Zionist agent than Bush.
I’m glad that the GOP candidates are unapologetically openly supportive of Israel. To those that object, the problem lies with them and their lack of moral clarity. Why should the GOP candidates hide the fact that they are taking the correct moral stance while the anti-Semites boldly express their support for evil? Why should people who represent what is right be timid about expressing themselves. Why let anti-Semites frame the debate?
The writer is another frightened Jewish liberal, not wanting to upset anti-Semites.
Again, why is it acceptable for America to have bombed Serbia on behalf of muslims but we must not allow the world’s anti-Semites to perceive we are fighting for Israel? Screw walt and mearsheimer and their ilk. I don’t care what they will say about an attack on Iran. How come they have no objection to the multiple wars we have fought over the last 20 years for muslims and muslim nations?
saddam hussein invaded Kuwait. The Kuwaitis begged us to save them. One would have to have been a rabid anti-Semite to be convinced that the gulf war was fought on behalf of Israel. This writer is a jackass. America should not base its foreign policy on how anti-Semites are going to perceive what motivates our actions. Meanwhile we have actually fought multiple wars on behalf of muslims. We are never told that we have to hide the fact that we are doing so. But we have to avoid even the mere perception that any American military involvement may benefit Israel. Chemi Shalev has the mentality of a ghetto Jew, afraid of angering anti-Semites.
What about secular Israeli Jews?
Secular liberal Jews don’t guilt-trip anyone about “aid” to Israel. They don’t care about Israel. And once again, and I have explained this numerous times, we don’t give “aid” to Israel as a favor to Israel, we provide it because it benefits us. The “aid” is provided on the condition that Israel uses it to buy military equipment from America. So the money gets filtered back into the US. And then there’s the intelligence that Israel supplies and technology improvements for the military and counter terror training Israel provides our armed forces. I’m so sick of the uninformed attitudes by those who espouse ending “aid” to Israel as if this is simply based on altruism. It never occurs to people like you that we may actually benefit from our relationship with Israel.
For the fourth time, Iran is also a threat to us. Why is that so hard to grasp? They will give nukes to terrorist groups. The Arab countries have no capability to stop Iran. Israel can to a limited extent take out some of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Only America has the military capacity to do the job completely. I’m sick of the isolationist attitudes by those wanting us to abdicate our responsiblity as leader of the free world. Stopping Iran is for our own national security interest not as a favor to Israel or the Arab states.
Given this statement, I question your sanity, Oatmeal. Why are you demonizing Michele Bachmann for being a friend to Jews and Israel? And yet you defend Ron Paul who couldn’t care less if Israel is wiped off the map.
Iran is not just Israel’s problem. Again I ask why are so many convinced that Iran doesn’t present a threat to America? That nation has been at war with us for 32 years, and as I’m going to say for the third time today, Iran’s reach and aims are global.
Exactly. And its not just a regional problem but as I said, Iran has a global reach.
It’s no secret that religious Jews believe Hashem is Israel’s greatest weapon while secular Jews put their faith in man made military might. However, if one doesn’t agree with government funded foreign aid secular Jews like to guilt trip everyone and make them feel they’re anti-Israel and anti-Jew. I’ve never believed in government funded foreign aid for ANY nation(private funding is acceptable) as it goes against Framer’s intent(but I must confess if there is one nation I won’t lose sleep over getting foreign aid from the U.S. taxpayer it is Israel but I also realize there are alot of americans(jewhaters and those who just oppose foreign aid on principle who don’t agree with it). I’ve never donated to AIPAC nor would I ever donate to AIPAC as it is a lobby and lobbyists are a big problem in American politics. I can purchase Israel bonds. I can donate to Friends of IDF or American LIBI. To me it is the equivalent of tithing.
2001: The American Aid Myth, by Moshe Feiglin
Moshe Feiglin would’ve had this wrapped up years ago. Religious Jews don’t seem to believe in seeking permission and foreign aid (with its strings attached)from the rest of the world. It would seem the secular Jews are the ones who demand foreign aid and want Israel to get permission from the rest of the world for everything including where Israel can build and whether they can defend themselves or not.
We could SELL the necessary armaments to this coalition of nations and then they could go and open up a can of whoop ass. What nations in the region are adequately equipped to carry out the mission successfully?
Why does everyone act like Israel is the only one in the region that has a problem with the idea of a nuclear Iran? No one mentions Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and the UAE as being nervous about the prospect as well. Israel gets singled out every time. Shouldn’t, couldn’t a coalition of nations, in the region, that would be most directly threatened by the prospect of a nuclear Iran get together and handle this? Why does the U.S. have to do everything all the time?
Shalev’s comments are anti-Republican, anti-Evangelical and anti-Israel. Her only POSITIVE agenda is her promotion of Obama TO JEWS as the only one who can save Israel. The woman is Jewish, and works for Ha’Aretz; so there’s no surprize about her.
Of all the Republican candidates’ stands presented, Michelle Bachman’s is the sickest:
and Ron Paul’s the healthiest for Israel:
The very best thing the US could do for Israel, is to get out of the way and let them duke it out with the Ayatollah. Bachman seems more interested in making Israel Judenrein and therefore “safe” for Jews (Yes, she appears to be insane). The other Republican candidates have been spewing out various flavors of B. S.
Could Obama attack Iran? I seriously doubt it. What’s he going to do? Turn around our troop ships that are evacuating next-door Iraq? Maybe he’ll want to cut an escape corridor across Iran for American forces fleeing Afghanistan — now that the Pakistanis are saying they have now “for the last time” closed off their country to transit by the Americans (for the nth time). This is an election year, and “No Boots on the Ground” Obama will be true to his word. He will provide support for the Turks and Arabs against Syria, in an invasion that ultimately targets Israel; but his interests in Iran probably do not go beyond minimizing damage to American assets in the Persian Gulf.
Israel needs to take care of Israel’s interests, on its own. The best America can do, is get out of the way.