Break Point?

I thought this started five years ago.  But I didn’t anticipate the actual level of open hostility of this administration to Israel and whether it would manifest itself during a war.

It may not have come to the forefront during Cast Lead—which was stopped cold for the first Obama inauguration—or Pillar of Defense, which, aside from the usual only-Israel-has-to-actually-follow-“rules”-of-war type restraint, was further hamstrung by considerations relating to the 2012 election.

This time it started almost immediately, with John Kerry’s probably deliberate hot mic comments, and the series of blackmail attempts with varying levels of nakedness, from the aborted FAA flight ban, to the $11B defense deal signed with the biggest financial and logistical backer of Hamas, to the “leaked non-conversation” between Obama and Netanyahu that was denied by the PM’s office and the NSC…but not the White House.

I think Netanyahu knows exactly where he stands with this President, given Obama’s general anticolonialist and Everybody-But-America-First ideology playing out in other arenas, especially pronounced in his dealings in the Middle East aside from the conflict between Israel and her neighbors.  He essentially kicked off his Administration when he performed the Grovel In Cairo in early 2009, and continues straight through his recent eid-al-fatr declarations [“Muslims built this country”--but I thought “you didn’t build that”?]

Further evidence: his unwillingness to even give a modicum of aid and comfort to the Greens in Iran as Madman-dinejad’s minions mowed them down; his banking on the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which blew up in his face when the Egyptians got buyers’ remorse, turned the MB out of office and started shooting them in the streets; his backtrack in Syria [even if not sending troops is salient, you still lose a ton of credibility drawing “red lines” you have no intention of backing up]; his failure to even deign to address the ISIS massacres and borderline enslavement of Christians in Mosul; and his attempts to allow Iran to get the bomb while he gives himself political cover for what he likely considers an inevitability [if he doesn’t believe that it’s Iran’s sovereign right to have one.  It’s also possible that he believes the Israelis will somehow take out the reactors or attempt to, and then he gets to condemn the Israelis while they ironically do his dirty work for him.]

[Something like the non-response to Mosul actually has precedent in American political history: when the Vietnamese invaded autogenocidal Cambodia and overthrew Pol Pot in 1979, the US, still smarting from the Vietnam War, condemned Vietnam.   Here the administration is hamstrung between its reluctance to condemn anything Muslim, its belief that its real genesis is the reaction to Gulf War II and the illegitimacy of having committed to that theater, and the concomitant possibility that they’d have to admit that the precipitous withdrawal might be a proximate cause.  Even if Megyn Kelly and Glenn Beck now think the right got it wrong, the days that blaming Bush would carry any weight are long over, which is why some on the right can now safely beat their breasts publicly.]

I think—aside from the counter-blackmail the Israelis pulled with the FAA ban [“You want ‘restraint’ in Gaza—we get the airport back”]—Netanyahu might sit and take diplomatic opprobrium as long as he gets to operate as Israel sees fit in Gaza, since his public is more than solidly behind him, because he’s going to force Obama to publicly reveal his endgame and finally dispense with the illusion that he’s anything but hostile to Israeli interests.   He’s slowly bringing the President to that point— where his Jewish approval is at the levels that Jimmy Carter’s was.

As I've mentioned before, absent all other reasons for Israel’s safety and security being a particular American interest, there is one almost transcendental reason: the spectre of dead Jews resulting from Administration inaction during the Holocaust.   Netanyahu is basically daring Obama to make into policy what Kissinger and Nixon could only discuss on the tapes: that another Holocaust might be a humanitarian issue but not a policy matter.

I actually don't think Obama is an anti-Semite.  [It's documented that Nixon and even Truman were.  And, according to Andrew and Leslie Cockburn--no friends of Israel--Jimmy Carter said he'd "f*** the Jews" in 1980, more than a decade before James Baker said something similar.]  But--like the pundit who said when Eric Cantor lost his most recent primary "it's not that they don't like Jews, they just love Jesus more"--it's not that Obama doesn't like Jews, he just likes their sworn mortal enemies more.  And Netanyahu is going to make him publicly choose sides and say so, which might put Obama in a political bind the likes of which haven't been seen in a long time.

How To NOT Fight To The Death

After reading Adam Winkler's Gun Fight and reading the treatment of the debate by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, I had further confirmation that there are certain issues in American life ostensibly infused with disproportionate moral import where the advocates for one side or the other, aside from the shrillness and sanctimony that accompanies said advocacy, usually conduct their debates in ways that result in their losing a considerable modicum of respect [which they might not have to let bother them] and, more importantly, credibility [which they might want to think about].

In theory, it sometimes doesn't matter which side of a debate is right. It's more satisfying to watch insufferably sanctimonious advocates for one position or another--sometimes, it's both sides in a particular debate--try not to have their brains explode when confronted with serious paradoxes.  These are especially endemic to the gun, death penalty, gay marriage, abortion and immigration debates.  Something having to do with Eros and Thanatos, perhaps; but these are more pronounced in the US than anywhere else.

The recent botched execution of Clayton Lockett further amplified the capital contradictions.  From the left, they had to deal with the fact that if there ever was a poster child for the death penalty, Lockett was it; aside from the fact that clamoring for violation[s] of his rights invariably meant that the rights of his victims were ignored or deemed less important, he continued to present a clear and present danger to numerous individuals--both inside and outside--even while on death row.

From the right, the attempts to pretend that the process is humane while state governments chase their own tails trying to purchase the needed drugs and the added Keystone Kops-like attempts to revive Lockett just made them look ridiculous. The truly honest ardent death-penalty proponents might have had to own up to the fact that somebody might figure out they actually WANT the process to be painful: the same Supreme Court that declared that executions violate the 8th Amendment when they are "nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or [] grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime"--aside from implying that some pain and suffering is not "purposeless and needless", and can be administered in "proportion to the severity of the crime"--went even further when it declared that "the expectation of pain and terror on the part of the defendant" was such a part and parcel of the death penalty that it therefore, ipso facto, could not be cruel and unusual.

[I've been told by various medical professionals that if states wanted to truly dispatch the condemned quickly and painlessly, 15 well-placed fentanyl patches would do the trick, the whole process running its course in 5 minutes.]

Now to keep my brains from exploding, and just in case people may have missed my previously stated positions on execution and gay marriage--and since I don't remember writing about abortion and had just a fleeting treatment of guns--here they are in a nutshell:

Guns: the 2nd amendment does allow for individually-owned weaponry AND for serious regulation of firearms [just ask Justice Scalia], even to the point that we should have a federal registry.

Death Penalty: the death penalty needs to be kept on the books for, as Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik put it, "extraordinary threats to public order". [Clayton Lockett and Malik Nidal Hassan qualify.] But the process needs to be transparent [which states make a mockery of when they render attempts at drug procurement and compounding to be "state secrets"] and equitable [cue the associated racial/socio-economic imbroglios. Either way the system stinks.]

Abortion:  as far as government involvement goes, it should be safe, legal, and rare.  I would call its employment as contraception without mitigating circumstances [economics don't count] morally dubious at best, but there are cases beyond even rape, incest and threats to the mother's life that I think mandate that the process be allowed even up to crowning.   Personhood legislation is ridiculous; it is never equivalent to infanticide.  And any attempt to ban contraception is not even worthy of consideration.  The left has its own special paradoxes to deal with in this arena [Kristen Powers especially nails it] but basically, they are easy to explain: conservatives want small government,  less regulation and more privacy, except here; liberals want to government to protect the disadvantaged [they would sooner protect endangered animals than human fetuses, and--I won't say someone--something is getting hurt], except here.

Gay marriage: restating what I wrote in 2008--my religious principles as I understand them preclude me from full-on advocacy, but that's theology, and other than the purely theological, there is no truly logical reason to morally oppose homosexual relations between consenting adults.  Conservatives have failed to make any salient secular case for themselves in this arena and should stop pretending that it can be anything but a religious issue.  All other arguments are ontological.

Oh, and immigration: we should take a cue from Mexico's laws--2 years in the clink and deportation for the first offense, 10 years in the clink and deportation for the second offense.  And a really big wall on the Southern border.  Plus, this will have the added bonus of keeping the private prison lobby happy if they're forced to release everyone convicted of low-level drug offenses, with a much bigger pool to draw from.  Or--we could just annex the rest of Mexico and finish the job[s] we started in 1836 and 1848.

Responses to Incitement

One might understand from UN envoy Staffan de Mistura’s comments about the recent riots in Afghanistan why the UN consistently gets it wrong.

De Mistura essentially blamed the riots and the deaths that resulted on the act that ostensibly “provoked” it, the burning of a Koran in Florida. De Mistura was unequivocal in his proclamation that “free speech” did not cover offenses to religion.

De Mistura is, of course, wrong. But one might actually understand why he said it: he was afraid for his, and his charges’, lives. Especially when the victims of the riots had absolutely nothing to do with the Koran burning by any degree of separation. One wonders why American troops weren’t targeted: could it be that the rioters feared superior firepower?

Another UN’er who got it wrong was Richard Goldstone, and this week, he admitted it. The Israeli response was notable in its absolute 180 degree divergence from the Afghan response: the Israeli interior minister invited Goldstone to see for himself what actually happens when Hamas terrorizes southern Israel. One can only imagine a parallel invitation from an Imam or other religious figure to one of Pastor Jones’ congregants to see what the “real” community of Koran readers are like. [Then again, it would likely be an invitation to a beheading.]

1989? 1918? 1979?

We might think—or hope—that the spontaneous uprisings in the Middle East are reminiscent of the Velvet Revolution[s] of 1989. One might even draw a parallel between Nicolae Ceausescu and Col. Khadafy: one leader who actually resisted the uprising ended up paying for it with his life [which many are likely praying for, in this case].

However, aside from the uncertainties inherent in any sudden regime change, especially in areas with no tradition of a truly republican rule of law [never mind democratic], and aside from the fact that Iran waits to fill any power vacuums that develop as a result of the widespread agitation, one might actually find a more salient parallel with the events that took place following World War I.

Following the Great War, when numerous ethnicities agitated for homelands under the principles of self-determination and old empires that had largely been intact for nearly a century crumbled under their own weight, the map up Europe was not only redrawn but its political makeup changed overnight, largely not for the better. In many cases, sclerotic monarchies were replaced either by revolutionary dictatorships [Hungary being one example] or very unstable republics [Weimar]. And, eerily reminiscent of Iran today, the newly formed Soviet Union waited in the wings to take advantage of any power vacuums that would result.

Additionally, the perception that the Middle East has been America’s private oil reserve parallels—however loosely and inaccurately—the colonialism of the post-1918 period. By extension, the ever looming specter of political Islam may be seen as a distorted version of self-determination, as the faith remains the center of the lives of much of the protestors, even as it remains a question as to whether the faith itself has propelled any of the current revolts.

The world—and especially the United States—has convincingly demonstrated that it was not ready for this. And while the endgame probably won’t mimic 1989 or 1918 [and, hopefully, not 1979], it remains to be seen what truisms are shattered and what new ones arise to take their place.

Arizona

As inappropriately ironic or ironically inappropriate as it may be to say so, the left has shot itself in the foot once again.

They may have had a legitimate—however flimsy—argument about the use of target imagery in politics as perilous if they restricted their argument to issues relating to gun control and gun culture; after all, it was a very loose purchase policy that allowed the murderer in Arizona to acquire his weapon and ammunition with relative ease.

Instead, the left decided to go after the entirety of the debating style of the right to score political points, mostly because they find it hard to shout back effectively.

Interestingly, Fox News chief Roger Ailes has called for a calmer tone from his side and has challenged the left to do the same, pointing out that both sides of the debate use target imagery as ubiquitous political metaphor.

In any case, indications from outlets such as the NY Times and MSNBC are such that they don’t seem to want to let up in this debate irrespective of the what the wishes of Rep. Giffords might be once she wakes up.

South Korea: Pacifism Redux?

One sees, on occasion, bumper stickers [usually courtesy of Code Pink, but the sentiment probably predates them] proclaiming that "War Is Terrorism". The unspoken corollary should be "Pacifism is Murder". It might be ironic that another longtime ally of the US, South Korea, has been forced by political consideration involving matters outside of its own security to be forced to sit tight while under direct attack from a historical sworn existential enemy. I guess it isn't just Israel.

One personage who didn't buy into the classic doctrinaire pacifist fallacy was Yitzchak Rabin; despite, with great misgivings, having decided to embark on the Oslo process, he realized two things that have eluded other [if not all] peace processors: one, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends--meaning that said enemies don't suddenly become your friends; and, two, peacemaking is, counterintuitively, a messy business [as evidenced by his comment in the immediate aftermath of Oslo that "Arab governments do not operate on Western democratic principles". He knew who he was working with, and wasn't suffering from the illusion that a "new Middle East" was about to be created.]

Certainly we don't need to be reminded of the fallacies of doctrinaire pacifism and peace processors. But everyone else does.

Corrections

WE NOW KNOW that the Obama Administration was planning nall along to drag the political center as far left as possible, and when he made overtones during his inaugural about governing from the center, this is what he meant to happen.

WE NOW KNOW that the American people don’t want this, but the Administrsation and its leaders really didn’t care. This was a case, as they saw it, of enacting a program of social justice with or without anyone’s consent.

WE NOW KNOW that the Tea Party may become a force to be reckoned with on par with what the Christian Coalition used to be. Even if it remains an idea more than a movement, without a clear leader or tangible center of gravity [other than Sarah Palin], conservatives ignore it at their peril. Despite the fact that a few of their more visible prominent candidates lost high profile races [specifically, the O’Donnell and Angle losses], Tea Party gains far outweighed the losses.

WE NOW KNOW that Sarah Palin is not necessarily a lightweight on the order of a Dan Quayler, or even a Dubya. She has been positioning herself to run for it all ever since the last election ended, and she’s figured out how to do it…and get rich at the same time.

WHAT WE DON’T KNOW yet is whether there is a possibility of an analog to Clintonian “triangulation” occurring, whether Obamans plan to work with the new majority or take the stance of becoming a new party of “no”—that is, “no” to compromising with the new class. [Dick Morris has written that Obama’s program is so far left that no compromise, and hence no triangulation, is possible.]

It might just be right at this moment that Obama believes so strongly in his program that he’s willing to sacrifice his second term the same way he sacrificed 15 percent of his party’s House seats and the Speaker’s gavel. When LBJ passed the Civil rights Act, he commented that the Democrats had lost the South for generations. One wonders whether Obama thinks his program’s element of social justice is as lofty as Johnson’s and therefore worth the political price. Judging from the sympathetic media [CNN. MSNBC, et al] attempts to whitewash the magnitude of the electoral correction, one would think that the media certainly hopes not, but the question would remain when the President would ever get an inkling that he harbors two contradictory concepts in his head: social engineering and further electoral success.