The following was written during the first half of W's administration:
Whenever one hears the phrase America’s policies in connection with some criticism of her, or in justifying an attack on some installation or embassy, it is usually shorthand for America’s support of Israel. Israel has been facing proportionally a far greater existential threat than virtually any other nation on earth. This is because of its relative small size and its close proximity to openly hostile neighboring states. It has been likened to a canary in the coal mine, a comparison which, now more than ever, is not lost on any American administration that takes its responsibility to protect its own citizenry seriously.
It must be assumed that the leadership of any nation operating on a global platform is privy to a lot of sordid intrigue that the rest of us would find difficult to stomach. Supposing then, that credible intelligence had existed that Iraq (or Iraq in conjunction with others) was about to launch an attack on Israel. The information might even have come initially from the Mossad itself.
Any U.S. President would then be obliged to consider his options, given the treaty obligations that exist between the two nations. The first question asked would likely center on Israel’s ability to launch a successful preemptive strike. How would the Arab world react? The action would hardly be unprecedented. What happened previously? What, if anything, has changed in the meantime? What would be the effect on Israel’s peace prospects with its Palestinian neighbors? The answers are all too obvious. Worst-case scenarios would definitely play a key role, considering the systemic volatility of the region.
The next question would likely involve Israel’s ability to bounce back from an initial, possibly nuclear or biological, attack. Could any nation morally justify sitting idly by, knowing that an attack involving the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of its citizens is immanent, simply to secure an iron-clad excuse (for world consumption) to retaliate in its aftermath? What would be the effect on the world economy should Middle East oil flows be compromised in an all out conflagration?
Given many such considerations, the obvious conclusion would dictate preemptive intervention by the U.S. on Israel’s behalf.
Only there is a problem: The public may not be ready to subscribe to the spillage of American blood and treasure for the Jewish State. This debate, if initiated, might not yield expected results. The President, mindful of the risk, would then wisely decide not to expose the potentially ugly underbelly (anti-Semitism) of something that should never again be exposed by any civilized nation.
He would then attempt to defend his initiative by seeking a secondary pretext that would presumably sit better with the American people. He would note that Iraq had ignored a whole host of U.N. resolutions. In this way, he would also hope to garner broader world support. He would point to atrocities committed by the Iraqi leadership, not only against its enemies but also against its own people, just to drive the point that these were indeed bad actors. Finally, he would hearken back to a frequent mantra initiated by his popular predecessor, repeating that the Iraqi regime may already be in possession of weapons of mass destruction (which, by inference, could then potentially be used against America itself).
Committing the lives of American’s sons and daughters is never easy. The American President would have had to feel confident that the military was up to the job. He was, of course, assured that Saddam Hussein could indeed be removed without much of a fight. Once the dictator was toppled, there was no reason to believe that Iraq’s people would be anything but grateful to the Americans for having liberated them from the clutches of a brutal tyrant. In the aftermath, Iraq would be promised massive amounts of American aid to rebuild its neglected infrastructure in anticipation of private foreign investment that would launch the country into the modern age. In this way, with two presumably prosperous and well functioning democracies (Afghanistan had already been slated for similar treatment) occupying Iran’s flanks, the Iranian people would see prosperity gaining beyond its own borders and rise up against their own increasingly insular and regressive government.
In effect, the domino theory had been revived by The White House in an effort to re-configure the entire Middle East into a friendly partner. It was hoped that, with its people gainfully engaged in commerce with the West, they would lose interest in calling for Israel’s destruction. It was an ambitious plan that was thought to be in the best interests of everyone concerned – a win-win proposition - yielding handsome dividends notably also to those with little of substance to contribute beyond applause who nevertheless rely on the smooth flow of cheap oil to fuel and expand their consumer economies. The lynchpin of the operation would be the demonstration of America’s willingness to use its military might to keep all the players in line. Its ultimate success, however, would depend on all the potential beneficiaries standing united against those who would continue to agitate and disrupt any progress towards achieving peace in the region.
The warning signs, however, would come early. Even though, the majority of the American people were in support of the plan initially, the international community, with few exceptions, would balk at the prospect of military action. They were not the ones attacked on 9/11 and hence did not feel they had a dog in the fight. Furthermore, they feared that their own Islamic populations would turn against them. Additionally, some of the nations approached for support, would find themselves enmeshed in a lucrative criminal scheme (oil-for-food scandal). An invasion, resulting in regime change, would likely put an end to the gravy train and prove embarrassing to high-positioned individuals who might have gotten their hands dirty. Finally, any nation, even suspecting that the security of Israel was what was really at stake, would for this reason alone withhold its support, as anti-Semitism has once again reached a crescendo - worldwide.
How has this happened? All my life, I have been hearing the phrase,
“never again” in connection with the holocaust. I thought that what had been done to the Jews during Hitler’s time had been universally condemned. Certainly, enough books have been written; enough movies made; enough museums built to chronicle the outrage. Most people nowadays just turn away, having had their fill of this never-ending litany of sorrows thrust upon them. Add to this the perception - fueled largely by the Arab world - that wherever trouble resides, Israel is never far behind.
In fact, what the planners of
Operation Iraqi Freedom failed to recognize was how effective the purveyors of anti-Israeli propaganda – who immediately began to smell a rat - had been in leeching their venom into Western academe and media via an undeniably determined Islamic presence inside a whole host of presumed allies. Once again, predictably, the utter intractability of the anti-Israeli argument would strike a responsive chord with moderate elements within the bulk of these countries who would first attempt to mediate the debate, but would ultimately end up converted.
There have always been holocaust deniers, people who, for their own reasons, find it difficult to accept the scope of the carnage; but such views have, in the past, been largely dismissed and, therefore, have remained on the margins. In some countries, holocaust denial was criminalized by legal statute. Today, we find holocaust denial vigorously promoted even by elected heads of state. Ironically, we also find that large segments of the world’s Islamic population would feel no discomfort whatsoever at the prospect of some version of a holocaust repeating itself.
What is the source of such hatred for a people who have done nothing but exist, often contributing far more than their expected share to the human experience? Permit me, at this point, to recount a couple of personal, admittedly peripheral anecdotes: There are several churches in the town where I have lived in America. They all coordinate out-reach programs for the poor; they run day-care facilities; and they organize social functions for their members. During summer, when many people opt for spending time at the shore, these same churches open for Sunday worship on a rotating basis in order to guarantee a decent turnout for the pastor scheduled to conduct the service that week.
Another tradition involves inviting the members of one church to another to interact socially. Generally, the host congregation provides food for such occasions. My mother has been active in one such church for many years. She tells of being invited by the congregation of the Jewish temple for bagels and cream cheese. She has bad teeth and said she had trouble chewing the bagels (as these must have been purchased too far in advance). Still, the outing for her and the others of her circle proved congenial.
Wishing to reciprocate, her group invited the Jewish congregation to their church. They were told that this would not be possible as many in the Jewish congregation adhered to strict dietary rules and would not be able to partake of the food offered.
No problem! The Presbyterians were more than willing to go out and have the meal brought in by certified kosher caterers. The Jewish group still raised objections, claiming that any meal eaten in a place where dietary rules were previously not strictly observed would be unacceptable.
The blue-haired ladies of my mother’s circle just shook their heads. For some with German surnames old wounds were aggravated. They had hoped that time would have made them immune. All agreed that the overture was lost. Despite all best intentions, the event was not to be.
Here in India I have on occasion been denied access to certain Hindu Temples. In Kerala, for example, there is said to be a colossal golden Vishnu reclining on the serpent of eternity. There are three doors, each one, when open, reveals a different part of the deity. Once a year, all the doors are thrown open and Vishnu appears complete, in full splendor. My wife told me about having visited the temple regularly as a child while growing up in Trivandrum. I too so wanted to see it, but when we arrived there we were told that only Hindus were allowed to enter. I felt cheated. Then it was explained to me that this was a way to keep those away who would show disrespect to the Hindu religion by joking or laughing or making crude comments in the presence of powerful gods, represented by the idols. It was also an attempt to prevent vandalism. I felt the anger rising within me.
“Why, I would never even think of doing anything like that,” I blurted.
“But there are others who would,” I was told.
“And you can guess who they are.” Now I understood why they were screening grandmothers and babies at airports.
Unlike the Hindus, the Jewish ladies had nothing to fear from the Presbyterian Lady’s Circle. They would have been shown the utmost courtesy. Their refusal to participate reciprocally in the commonly accepted social pantomime was sheer and utter bloody-mindedness.
---------------------------------------
Driving through the town of Lakewood, New Jersey, any time of day - any day of the week - one sees orthodox Jews of all shapes and sizes dressed in black suits, white shirts, and wearing funny, wide-brimmed hats, nervously dodging traffic on foot, peyots and tzitzis flying. The rest of the town’s population is mostly black. The chief-of-police maintains an uneasy truce between these two disparate groups, which are somehow destined to live side by side (as is also the case in New York’s Crown Heights section, which frequently finds itself the subject of news bulletins following some public disturbance or another). Lakewood is located along Route 9, a major truck route running north and south (commercial vehicles are prohibited on the Parkway, which runs parallel with Rt. 9). The burly truckers all giggle amongst themselves whenever they happened to be driving through the town, venturing their opinions about inbreeding and ovens.
There is a lovely lake at the south end of the town that has a boardwalk built part way around it. There, the orthodox matriarchs are seen parading their daughters in the benevolent evening light. It is quite certain that not one of their husbands ever took up a hammer or saw to contribute to the construction of this boardwalk - though they may well have given money at arm’s length, as is their tendency to maintain at a distance.
-------------------------------------------
There is always a suspicion of the bird that does not conform to the flock as in Jerzey Kosinski’s,
“The Painted Bird”, a novel based on a game eastern European boys used to play between the wars. It involved capturing a bird and painting it some garish color before releasing it once again. Its mates would then find it and peck at it - preferably while still in flight (from the boys’ point of view) - until mortally wounded, it would come crashing spectacularly to the ground.
Someone once said that the world has never forgiven the Jews for introducing a judgmental God into the mix. Compounding matters is the arrogance suggested when a people refer to themselves as the chosen. A good number of Jews themselves have abandoned their faith and struck out on their own. Now no longer shackled by strict moral codes and intrusive ritual, many have succeeded in achieving success in secular arenas, as in the arts, the sciences, as well as in politics. By their considerable influence, they have been able to secure the backing of the world’s most powerful military machine in support of their (mostly) secular democratic experiment: Israel.
Those Jews most vehement in their rejection of religion – their own, as well as those of others - have managed to author and support a political system that first and foremost strikes any deity from the human heart. In their view, the Zionist state commits two sins simultaneously: first, by allowing the religious component to flourish; and, second, by insisting on legally defined borders (as opposed to their ideal of open migration). They do not support the Jewish state and are fiercely dedicated to its demise. As we have seen in the previous chapter, such sentiments remain attractive to any number of left-leaning groups who continue to plot America’s own abdication with near-fanatical zeal. We can no longer fail to suspect that, for radical left-wing atheists, Communism has become a substitute religion, embracing a comprehensive (albeit shallow) worldview complete with sins (littering), sacraments (abortion), and the obligation to proselytize. In addition, they all fervently anticipate a second coming of sorts, when all the world’s people will live under a single (red) banner. In order for this to happen, they believe, the great Satan of inequity (also known as America) must first be dethroned. It is they, who are now driving the wedge of division between us, wishing to see us buckle under the weight of our own debate as we confront a whole host of challenges at home and abroad. As pertains to radical Islam’s bid for power specifically, their intent to aid and abet this enemy has become abundantly clear. It is not that they necessarily support the terrorist’s fanatical vision. The fact that it can inflict damage on America is what remains attractive to them.
Until 1948, never having had a permanent patch of earth to develop and call their own, the Jewish people have perfected the art of cultivating the mind no matter where they might have found themselves. Harry, a high school friend of mine, a Jew, used to break out in hives every time our school issued reports. He was an ordinary kid like the rest of us. It’s just that he lived in the good part of town and had a tennis court in his yard. (The rest of us had to make do with badminton nets.) Another friend, Todd, would run into him years later by sheer coincidence at the Cairo train station of all places.
It was obvious that Harry’s parents put pressure on him to excel. This trait may well have applied to the parents of most Jewish children at that time (as it is generally acknowledged to apply to Asians today). As such, their consistently well-honed mental skills have landed them, in disproportionate numbers, in positions of leadership. Here in India, for example, Israeli firms have helped to introduce a type of farming that is possible even on semi-arid land. As a result, even the poorest of the poor here now have access to fresh fruits and vegetables year round. India has also teamed with Israel to develop desalinization projects, vitally important in this part of the globe where aquifers are being fouled at an alarming rate due to overuse. This kind of cooperation, supported by better-than-average proficiency in the academic arts by the peoples of both nations, habitually leads to progress. It is indicative of populations seeking to embrace the future with hope and optimism.
Contrast the Indian approach to what has occurred in Gaza. When the Israelis withdrew, evacuating their settlements, they also left behind fully functioning greenhouse technologies. The first thing the Palestinians did was to smash the greenhouses and bring in rockets to prolong a fight they had already won.
It is clear that those who shun compromise can only expect their enemies to do likewise. The Palestinians and their allies demand nothing less than Israel’s total and complete eradication. Israel demands to remain a viable political entity on land ceded to them legally by the United Nations. No common ground exists between these two positions. Any third party that thinks it may have a solution to this conundrum is not living in reality. On the other hand, few people have the stomach for what must eventually happen. Were this case to go before a human court (with the power to enforce its decision), one of the sides would be forced to capitulate. A Western court would likely give the nod to Israel (though this is, as of this writing, no longer certain), whereas an Arab court would reduce Israel to a barrel in which fish are shot at will. As neither decision is likely to favor consensus, the status quo will be allowed to fester until new demographic realities can dictate solutions that are beyond dispute.
A divine court would simply look at the existing balance of power and base its determination on that basis alone. Chief among its considerations would be an evaluation of the passion either side is able to generate in support of its objective. In these days of ennui-based indecision, military power alone cannot determine the outcome to any such conflict because it would have to be used unreservedly as to have any practical effect. Israel would have to go nuclear, while the Palestinians would have to scale Israel’s walls in unprecedented numbers. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have thus far shown any inclination to go all out, and use every advantage at their disposal. However, with the nuclear option gaining on the Arab side, things might soon change.
All they have essentially done thus far is talk. While Israel has announced its intentions to hold the fort by building a wall, Palestinians have held elections, the results of which underscored their own commitment to drive Israel into the sea. They have shown ample willingness to sacrifice even their children in order to achieve that goal. For a world, only concerned with oil to fuel its economies, this may be enough to gravitate towards a policy of appeasement, thus tipping the balance in favor of the side that appears most determined. We have watched a steady escalation of the tensions between these two neighbors, from the occasional Palestinian suicide bomber slipping through the border, to a daily exchange of rocket fire, to full military incursions across internationally sanctioned boundaries. At some point, mere containment of hostilities will cease to be an option. At this writing, Palestinians have already once broken through the border into Egypt. How long can their border with Israel remain secure?
The irritant in all this has always been Israel’s physical presence in the Middle East. Were Israel to disappear overnight, the region would simply revert to what it had been all along: a kettle of feuding tribes. No longer would Israel serve as a focus, uniting all of these under a single green banner. Both America and Europe, seen as being too far away as to pose a threat to Middle Eastern chaos, would recede in importance and be left to their own devices. It seems, the mere proximity of infidels is what goads Arabs into engaging their seemingly boundless capacity to hate. As it would be unwise to place one’s king into an adjacent square of an opposing queen (as in chess), it was perhaps equally unwise to establish the nation of Israel in the Middle East.
As good men struggle to find chessboard solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as well as others), even invoking the names of their chessboard gods to help them guide their decisions, only the ultimate reality of the perfectly balanced moment - that is able to calculate the precise consequence of every action, past, present and future - knows the eventual outcome to any situation. Unburdened by human prejudice and desire, it remains the final arbiter assigned to sort through the chaos of human political rivalry and betrayal.
---------------------------------------------
Still, the President would push on. He would go it alone, if he had to. His faith assured him that every human heart yearns for freedom and for the opportunity to pursue its bliss. In his mind, there was no place for dictators who run nations solely for their own amusement. Initially, things went according to plan. Hussein’s forces were defeated in record time and the people came out in droves to welcome their liberators.
What he had not counted on was that the Iraqi people would continue to be under threat from their own religion; that the mere presence of infidels (non-Muslims) in the country would act like a magnet for people from all over the region seeking only to kill and destroy in order to satisfy some religiously inspired jihad. Who might have foreseen that the Iraqis, at first well disposed towards their liberators, would themselves become targets; that brother would be made to turn against brother and all hell would break loose.
The President had also not counted on popular support eroding at home. In the past, politics had always stopped at the water’s edge. Not with this President! Democrats decided en masse to summarily bock every move he would contemplate, foreign or domestic. No alternate positions would need be advanced, as the strategy was designed solely to make the President look bad. Democrats were fully invested in America’s failure on any number of fronts, thinking that this would increase their chances in future elections. Unmindful of the precedent set, they would be proven right.
The mainstream press, desperately wanting Democrats back in power (if for no other reason than to flex its muscle in denial of declining influence), would attack him relentlessly. His considerable success with regard to the U.S. (and, hence the world’s) economy would deliberately go unreported. His efforts to reach out to Democrats, offering them a policy voice, were cast as defeats. No Democrat would be interested in working with the President. They were only here to say
“no” with resounding unanimity. The press would march in lock step, giving voice to any petty crackpot capable of putting two sentences together, the first being,
“Bush sucks.” As I write this, America is preparing for mid-term elections. Conventional wisdom has the Republicans losing control of both Houses. If this were to happen, the partisanship would likely only increase. The Democrats, buoyed by their victories can be counted on to overreach. For one thing, the Democrats would want to begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush; this, simply a continuation of their already blatant campaign to criminalize policy differences. In addition, they would also attempt to bring back the fairness doctrine, which would effectively take conservative voices off the air. These all are things the American people themselves - roughly 50% of whom are conservative - will not allow to let stand.
Just how a newly configured Washington would respond to the Islamic threat is anybody’s guess. So far, no serious policy position other than cut and run in Iraq has been articulated by any Democrat of national standing. If such a policy were indeed actively pursued, it would likely unleash a civil war in that country and plunge the entire Middle East into a firestorm. It would affect America too in that the flow of oil supplies would likely be disrupted. Insofar as America has no plan B with regard to its energy needs, its economy would grind to a virtual halt. Israel would be sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. The Chinese would take Taiwan; North Korea would make its move to take the South.
I once wrote an e-mail to John Loftus, a Democrat and regular contributor to The John Batchelor Show (radio program), whose thoughtful analysis of events, particularly in the Middle East, I respected. I asked if he was not at all concerned at the prospect of John Kerry winning the election. He replied that both Bush and Kerry were aware of the facts on the ground; that both men would likely respond to events similarly. This view certainly could not be gleaned from press reports. It got me to thinking, that Loftus might be right after all; that the President of the United States (or of any country) is merely a figurehead; that any nation always does what is in its best interest regardless of who voices (or, as in Bush’s case, does not voice) the policy. If this is indeed so, then America will always be number one; Israel will remain its best ally in the Middle East; the Arabs will continue to sell oil; and the Communists will forever cement their status as also-rans, despite persistent press reports to the contrary. Now and then, perfectly decent men will be sacrificed for sport on the altar of public opinion, as has been demanded by pagan ritual since long before the thief, Barabbas, gained his freedom so that Christ could be crucified.
I lack confidence in my ability to read my tea leaves precisely. As I see it, there appear to be just three possible outcomes to our present geo-political puzzles. One, the Islamists will take over the world and force everyone to submit to shariat law. Should this happen, there would be one thousand years of peace (as the Islamists themselves predict) as no one will be permitted to oppose them. This scenario, however, is not likely to develop, as neither the Communists nor the capitalists would tolerate the religious element inherent in Islam for long. Two, the West will have buckled under the twin pressures of Islam and the effects of its own decadence, allowing the Communists to simply walk in. In this case, there too would be a thousand years of peace (or absence of conflict) as; once again, no one would be allowed to deviate from the State-proscribed program. They would be ruthless in eradicating Islam and any other religion that does not conform to their Marxist template. The thousand years of peace would be accompanied by something akin to the dark ages as no progress will be made in any field except in the construction of Gulags and re-education centers. Three, the West will prevail, but lacking the discipline to act decisively, the status quo will remain. There will be a thousand years of low-level conflicts around the world as well as intense political drama. No leader in the West or elsewhere has yet emerged to take the reigns decisively. Should something happen such as another 9/11 or worse, it is possible that the people will begin to rally around someone who shows signs of having a credible plan to actually tackle some issues. Realistically speaking, only the West has the resources to accomplish whatever it wants. What is lacking at present is conviction.
In any case, whatever happens (or does not happen) to Israel in the meantime, should give a pretty fair indication of where we are headed. Should Israel be left to the wolves, the implications for the West would be grim. It would mark the beginnings of a slide toward irrelevance. It would signal the wolf pack that America has been severely wounded; that the time is right to move in and strike the fatal blow. Should the Israeli-Palestinian issue remain unresolved, the current situation will continue (and we all know what that’s been like). Should Israel emerge a clear winner in the Middle East, the future of the U.S. as strongman will remain assured. The Chavez’s and Castro’s of the world would continue to bark and bite at the ankles, but their efforts would fall into the category of sideshow. Eventually they would lapse into irrelevance.
A lot of what happens will depend on Israel itself. Should Israel lose hope, and should America be unable to reassure her convincingly, all bets are off. Israel’s partnership with America is vital for the viability of both nations. This is why I posited my remarks at the beginning of this chapter as I did.
----------------------------------------------
There’s a man living in my house who wants to kill me. I know this because he has tried it many times before and is always openly talking about it. I’ve had to put him in a box for my own protection. I give him food and water – all the essentials; I even promised I would let him go if he abandons his quest to rob me of my life.
Now, this man is claiming that his family is starving because he can’t go out and work. I reiterate that all he would have to do is give up his lethal intentions. He refuses.
His family has now taken it upon itself to slander my name in the village. They say I am a monster for letting them starve. Self-appointed human rights groups hold rallies almost daily just outside my gate, shouting the vilest slogans. (I’ve had to move my own family into the rear quarters so they can go about their business undisturbed.) Never is my own right to live in peace considered a legitimate reason for what I’ve been forced into doing.
The man in the cage believes that because I am in the position to imprison him, I am the one who is powerful and, hence, accountable for all that happens. He sees himself as my victim. As
“victim”, he boasts, he is always blameless. He also knows that those of the village will always support the underdog and view his suffering as heroic – even saintly. All my protestations to the contrary have no impact.
In a world that believes that might is right, I am beginning to doubt my own moral position in this matter. Perhaps I should free him and offer my breast to his knife. Then he would suffer first-hand the contradictions inherent in possessing power. Would his murderous mind even appreciate the lesson?
Maybe I think too much. Maybe the understanding of power is precisely that which diminishes it. Perhaps I should set him free - and then sic my dogs on him. The world will howl but, conscience or no conscience, I’d still be alive.
The other day, he let it slip that any formal agreement between him and me would mean very little in any case; as he would not feel bound by anything he might be inclined to promise me. Though, I have always suspected it, I was grateful to hear it from his lips. It opened up the possibility that he wasn’t really interested in killing me at all. I am still not prepared to let him go free, but the thought kept me pleasantly occupied for some hours. Then, I hit on the truth of it: The rascal can garner more attention and sympathy for himself and his family by staying locked up than by going out and doing something useful.
Posts
