“[The United States has] a fateful tie to the Israelis from which we have, in contradistinction to the Israelis, everything to lose, and nothing to gain.” — George F. Kennan, Diaries, 25 April 1978.
“Our form of government, inestimable as it is, exposes us, more than any other, to the insidious intrigues and pestilent influence of foreign nations. Nothing but our inflexible neutrality can preserve us.” — John Adams, c. 1809.
As the renewed Israeli-Palestinian war rages in Gaza, America is presented with an ideal moment to run — not walk — away from its suicidal commitment to both sides. Surely, no sane American — except the Neocons, whom it would be absurd to consider either sane or loyal Americans — could have missed the fact that what is going on in the current war has had absolutely no immediate impact on the United States.
The war is occurring in a far away place that is no longer of any strategic interest to the United States because the combination of Washington’s relentless, war-causing and Islamist-motivating interventionism and Obama’s cowardly surrenderism have already given the entire region to the Islamists and ensured — thanks to Jewish-American Neocons — Israel’s ultimate doom. Therefore it matters not a lick to any but disloyal Americans whether the Israelis kill all the Palestinians, the Palestinians kill all the Israelis, or, in the best case scenari0, they mutually destroy each other. At the end of the war they all simply will be dead foreigners of whom we had no need and for whom we need not bid any teary farewells. Peoples who want to fight religious wars deserve whatever they get, and these two peoples are determined to fight their religious war until one side or the other is destroyed. Well, so be it, let us get out of it now.
There is a rub for the United States, however, and that reality makes complete U.S. disengagement more urgent than ever before. That rub lies in the fact that each bomb or missile the Israeli air force uses in Gaza will eventually yield a dead American soldier or Marine and/or a dead civilian. This is not a fact that President Obama or Secretary of State Kerry will use to inform the American people about what is at stake for the United States in the long run, because they — along with most of their party and the Republican Party — really could not care less about our nation’s security as long as campaign contributions and media support keep flowing from disloyal Israel First, U.S. citizens and their fundamentally anti-American organizations. As long as that graft keeps flowing their way from the Israel Firsters, they are all more than willing to motivate our Islamist enemies by backing Israel to the hilt.
All of these officials will seek to hide their corrupt relationship with U.S. citizen, Israel First leaders by blathering on about the need for a cease-fire, a two-state solution, and restraint from both sides. What is it, do suppose, that makes senior elected and appointed American officials live in the fantasy world that sees an amicable solution to this problem as a possibility. The answer is bribery, as these people are all listed as members in good standing on Israel First’s bountiful payroll list. Because of the dire need to uphold what is left of the Constitution, we must permit these enemies of America to prattle on, but recognizing their flagrant disregard for genuine U.S. national interests we ought to just ignore them.
It is exquisitely clear, that Israelis and Arabs are going to fight each other until one or the other is annihilated, so let them fight. But we must get our fingerprints off of this non-problem for the United States. A good first step is to stop listening to all of the media pundits — I wonder how many hold Israeli passports? — who justify Americans eventually being killed because of Israel’s current military actions by arguing that Israel as the “only democracy in the Middle East” and therefore must be supported no matter the cost. What kind of an insane argument is that? What possible impact would it have on genuine U.S. interests if there were no democracies in the Middle East? How much worse off would our national security be? Would the end of the only democracy in the Middle East threaten U.S. security one-thousandth as much as the failure of the last three presidencies to control U.S. borders? Of course it would not. The absence of the Israeli democracy — and U.S. support thereof — would go unnoticed vis-a-vis genuine U.S. national security interests, save us a ton of money, and terminate one major source of our Islamist enemy’s motivation to attack America.
One of the newer and more troubling angles that has emerged in this iteration of the Israel-Palestine war also must be terminated. That is the increasing support among American intellectual and church leaders for the Palestinians. Presbyterians disinvest in stocks if they benefit Israel and university professors rain down hate on Israel because it defends itself against Palestinian attacks. These religious and academic folks are as big fools as are most senior U.S. officials. None seem capable of recognizing reality: THERE WILL BE NO SOLUTION TO THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT UNTIL ONE SIDE WIPES OUT THE OTHER.
The Palestinians are not going to accept eternal Israeli domination of their day-to-day lives, economy, politics, and foreign-and-defense policies, nor will they peacefully accede to the constant Israeli theft of their land. Nor should anyone expect or urge them to. Israel, on the other hand, has every right in the world to defend itself in whatever manner it deems necessary to protect its territory, populace, borders, and apparently endless quest for Lebensraum. And no one should expect or demand the Israelis to stop pursuing what they adamantly believe to be their nation’s security and survival.
BUT THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND HERE, and there is no U.S. interest in intervening in the affairs of these peoples who love and feel duty bound to make war in the name of their respective God. Because no nation-state on this planet — including the United States — has a “right to exist,” let these two states kill each other until one proves that the other had no right to exist. We best look out for the durability of own country’s existence, which at the moment — thanks to the policies of our bipartisan interventionists and the traitorous behavior of the the Neocons, Israel Firsters, and those U.S. citizens who support both — seems not to be something we can count on for very much longer.
America’s Founders knew that the viability of the nation they created was very far from a sure thing, and that involvement in unnecessary foreign wars rapidly eroded that viability. They therefore sought — and urged their posterity to seek — to ensure that they did not formulate policies or take actions that enmeshed America in other peoples’ wars; indeed, they sought to ensure that America would never engage in war unless genuine national interests were at stake.
The Founders’ sound, neutrality-dominated approach to foreign affairs is nicely summarized in a sermon preached by a Harvard-educated, Protestant pastor — Harvard and Protestants still loved America at that point — in Boston in June 1793. “God in his Providence,” Peter Thatcher, D.D., said,
“has placed us in a remote part of the world, and if our own brethren in other countries ‘fall out by the way’ we will endeavor to reconcile them, but we will not become partners in their quarrels. They have a right to choose their own governments and manage their own affairs without interference. God does not call us to war. We are not attacked or endangered; until we are, we have no right to spill our own blood, or that of our children. Let us then study the ‘things that make for peace.’ Let us unite in repressing those restless spirits who cannot see a quarrel going on without inserting themselves in it.”
Amen, Rev. Thatcher, Amen and bravo.