Should we believe President Bush's statement, as discussed in the previous post, that the U.S. will defend Israel against Iran? His words seem very straightforward, but certain pundits nevertheless see reason to doubt.
I feel that the President is fully sincere, although unfortunately his words aren't quite as pro-Israel as they may seem. How can that be? Let's re-examine his key point, as quoted in the previous post:
"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace."
This statement is certainly true, but just as notable is what's left out. Iran isn't after only Israel; it has directly threatened America as well. As president of the United States, Bush's responsibility is first and foremost to his own nation, and although he mentions defending Israel, his warning's real impetus is to advance America's interests, and not necessarily those of Israel (or anyone else). Protecting America comes first.
This is, of course, no surprise; the leader of any nation will defend his own land before that of others. But Bush's words are actually troubling in a deeper sense. He presents America as doing Israel a favor, one which presumably must be repaid in the future. This could prove harmful if Israel's interests fail to align with America's in such manner, and in any case, Israel shouldn't owe the U.S. for really protecting its own neck. Furthermore, Bush's words unintentionally give fodder to those who outrageously believe that Israel controls America; here is more "evidence," such bigots and crackpots would say, that Israel's interests dictate U.S. foreign policy.
America's plans to support Israel against Iran are wonderful, but we must remember that like all nations, the U.S. places its own goals first. America sat idly during World War II until its own shores were attacked, and it hardly counteracted international terrorism until the 9/11 tragedy. America is highly pro-Israel, but above all it is simply pro-America. Israel should certainly welcome U.S. assistance, but would be wise to always remember this point.
In other news:
Israel may have little of the black gold, but blue gold is another story: Jewish state poised to be a water technology superpower.
While Harvard's faculty may lean leftist, the student body, thank goodness, does not. WorldNetDaily's Hans Zeiger reports on the Ivy League generation gap.
Amazingly, the Basque terrorist group in Spain, ETA, has agreed to a permanent cease-fire. The group's motive, most suspect, is that Al Qaeda has so turned the world against terror that the tactic has lost its effectiveness for everyone else. I'm not so sure, however. In general, terrorist groups can never be trusted, and ETA has broken numerous cease-fires in the past. News of this latest truce is certainly welcome, but I would view it with a healthy dose of skepticism.
CAMERA has provided yet another rebuttal to the disgraceful Harvard study on the Israel lobby.
Bush should expect something in return for US support. Thats the smart thing to do.
The rub lies in how you expect that support to be paid back and I have seen nothing to suggest that the Administration is out of line in this regard.
Anyways, just like people - countries are imperfect and there will always be snags in any relationship because both parties are obligated to address their own best interests first. Its only natural.
Why do people want to be politicians in the first place? You have to be crazy...
Posted by: Freedom Now | March 24, 2006 at 01:00 PM
Hi Freedom Now,
I agree that the U.S. is acting very reasonably and is not out of line or inconsistent, but my main point in the piece is to say that Bush's warnings to Iran are more about defending America itself than about actually defending Israel. Therefore, I think Bush should just go ahead and say this directly.
It's great that the U.S. supports Israel here, but I'm worried that Bush is angling for ways to make Israel seem indebted to America, in case the U.S. needs to prod Israel to make some concession in order to appease the Arabs in case of an oil crisis.
This is not to say Bush is anti-Israel, and indeed he's probably the most pro-Israel president America has ever had. But the problem is, even if he doesn't want to act this way personally, the world is so dependent on Middle East oil, that I would guess he feels like he has no choice.
The real solution to this problem, in my mind, is for Israel to stand firm against Hamas and Iran no matter what anyone else says. And ultimately, the U.S. needs to come up with viable alternative energy so the world is no longer a slave to oil.
Posted by: Solid Surfer | March 24, 2006 at 01:35 PM