The US-Israeli Alliance, Beyond Blood and Soil
Eric Cantor, token Jewish Republican, was naturally a featured speaker at Christians United for Israel’s big event yesterday. He offered the view that while “reaching out to the Muslim world” is all well and good we need to make sure that “as Americans that our policies be firmly grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded.” It’s not totally clear to me what this means beyond Cantor trying to build Jewish-Christian solidarity on a solid foundation of anti-Muslim sentiment, but Jon Chait thinks we should understand it as meaning something more particular, namely that “he wants the United States to treat Israel the way Russia treats Serbia — an ally based on common cultural heritage.”
Chait further comments:
It’s also perfectly nuts. The basis of the U.S.-Israel alliance is, and should continue to be, Israel’s democratic character and desire to live in peace, in contrast to the eliminationist intentions of its neighbors. Cantor is saying that Israel deserves America’s support merely because of its Jewish quality. So if, say, Israel were to become a fascistic state bent on the destruction of its neighbors*, then the case for the U.S.-Israel alliance would be no less strong, because of a shared religious heritage. It’s a rancid, illiberal, primitive way of thinking about foreign policy.
*Yes, left-wingers, I know you think this is already the case. Take your comments to Stephen Walt’s blog.
The footnote gives us a caricatured view of a liberal critique of the U.S.-Israeli status quo. But surely we can admit that there’s some middle ground between “a fascistic state bent on the destruction of its neighbors” and a state with a “democratic character” possessed of a “desire to live in peace.” The Bibi Netanyahu administration does not appear to have any interest in destroying Egypt or Syria or Jordan or Lebanon but it also doesn’t appear to have any interest in living in peace with the Palestinians. Nor does it even have any interest in ceasing to expropriate Palestinian land. And while certainly not a fascistic state, it is a state where in the West Bank the level of rights one has is determined by whether one is Jewish or not.
Americans, especially liberal American Jews, have tended to gloss over that situation noting that Israel is operating from a position of some duress. What’s more, the fact that Israel exercises sovereignty over a population of millions of non-citizens is deemed to be a temporary situation rather than an integral characteristic of the Israeli state. This, however, is where the question of the settlement freeze really comes into play. The more settlements grow and expand, and the more the Israeli government characterizes any limits on settlement expansion as an intolerable violation of settler rights, the more the situation in the West Bank ceases to look temporary. And when viewed as a non-temporary situation, the idea of a patch of territory in which citizenship is differentiated by ethnicity, with segregated roads and walled-off townships and differential access to water looks less-and-less like a democracy.
25 Responses to “The US-Israeli Alliance, Beyond Blood and Soil”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“The basis of the U.S.-Israel alliance is, and should continue to be, Israel’s democratic character and desire to live in peace, in contrast to the eliminationist intentions of its neighbors.”
We should support Israel because its neighbors intend to poop? Okay…
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
You can’t blame Cantor for trying to cook up an irrational, clannish basis for US support for Israel. It’s not like there’s a rational one available.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I believe the term you’re looking for is “occupation”.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
In the West Bank? Get real. The whole place is a racist cesspool. And how could it be different – Zionists control it.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
A world government is a great idea precisely because of people like Cantor.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Of course the situation in the West Bank is temporary. It might end in a Palestinian state (option 1). Or it might end with the West Bank being part of Israel and the Palestinians there having the right to vote (option 2). The Israelis insist on continuing with settlements, and more and more settlements ensure that eventually option 2 will be the case once the Palestinians start a campaign to have the vote as equal citizens of Israel. This will take a few decades, whereas option 1 would happen a lot quicker. But one way or another, things will find a resolution.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
If those are teh only two ways you can see the situation playing out, you’re not thinking hard enough. Or darkly enough.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Chait is a fool. Judeo-Christian means that the temple will be rebuilt and war will erupt and God will come down and finally kill everyone. Pretending otherwise means you have to discount what major Christian Israel supporters say on the subject. The idea that Judeo-Christian means anything except a buzzword to Cantor is laughable.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
They’ve retaken Jericho under the aegis of God so screw the rest of the world.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
@6: …option 1 …option 2
Of course as long as Zionists are in charge, there is only one option: ethnic cleansing continues until all ethnically undesirable individuals are forced out, or starved, or killed.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Not wanting to get all Judeo-Christian about this, but I suppose the question is, “Who is Israel’s neighbor?” If the only “neighbors” of Israel are Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, then you can’t really accuse them of wanting to eliminate their neighbors.
Of course, to go whistling past that discussion of Israel’s neighborhood is to reduce the Palestinian people to a footnote, to an end-note. It is to nod thoughtfully along with Golda Meir as she says, “There is no such thing as Palestinians.”
But why should Jon Chait care? _He_ wasn’t born in the West Bank.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
What’s more, the fact that Israel exercises sovereignty over a population of millions of non-citizens is deemed to be a temporary situation rather than an integral characteristic of the Israeli state.
One should hardly consider this exercise of sovereignty to be any more temporary than Israel itself. Israel’s been exercising that sovereignty for all but the first 19 years of its existence.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Well, even if Jon Chait was born in the West Bank, his valuable ethnicity would certainly guarantee him a high position in our Judeo-Christian society. It’s not as if he is some dirty Arab or something.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Odd basis for conducting international relations. Ally with mostly-Catholic Cuba (even if its government wishes otherwise — Cantor’s criteria is based on cultures, not states) and Orthodox Russia, and cut off our alliance with Shinto/Buddhist Japan? Cantor doesn’t really think that, I’m sure.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
This entire brouhaha over the settlements is a laugh. If the Fakestinians had accepted the Clinton/Ross two state plan in 2000 most of the settlements on the West Bank would have been gone and there would be a Fakestinian state as we sit here today. The Fakestinians said no and they are now paying the price. They made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. Tough noogies.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Slow blogging day, Matt? Chait’s throwaway comment’s a pretty weak basis for restating your standing position on Israel. Yeah, we got it. Next time, maybe wait until Israel does something that requires your reinforming us all again. It probably won’t take too long.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I think Sarah Palin probably put it best when she said that we should never question Israel’s right to defend itself…which pretty much covers everything that the Israelis do–from spying on us, to selling our technology to the highest bidder.
Having worked in both the political sector and the military sector, I find it enormously amusing to see the contrast between what these two groups think of the Israelis. On the one hand you’ve got folks in the political sector that are totally dependent upon J-Streets fundraisers. On the other, you’ve got individuals that are concerned about the security of the U.S.
There’s a reason why the military (for the most part) takes a very cold and calculated view towards the Israelis…I think I’ll just stop there.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“Does not appear to have any interest in living in peace…” is an equivocal phrase. This could mean that Israel desires war with the Palestinians, or it could mean that Israel is unwilling to take actions that, one could speculate, would lead to Palestine no longer being a haven for people who commit acts of war against Israel.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
“The Bibi Netanyahu administration…”
Uh, you might want to put something in here about their attacks on Irag and syria in here, not to mention that they’re doing their damnedest to get the US to blow Iran to smithereens.
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:26 am
Netanyahu administration does not appear to have any interest in destroying Egypt or Syria or Jordan or Lebanon …
You sure about that? I know a lot of Lebanese who, having seen their country blown to pieces twice in 30 years, would beg to differ.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Sorry guys, supporter of Israel here. The Palestinians in the West Bank live in sqallor because they allow Hamas to control the area. Thay cannot go back to where they originally came from because their own people do not want them. Mahmoud Abbas claims to have met all conditions for talks regarding the West Bank, but has not met one, he is a liar, plain and simple. Meanwhile, in the West Bank, Hamas uses the citizens as human shields and hides in hospitals with their ammo while launching attacks at Israel, making it difficult for them to retaliate because they do not want to hurt civilians if at all possible. Stop listening to people educated beyond their intelligence and stop buying everything the non-credible mainstream media says. It is all a bunch of crap! As far as Iran is concerned, Israel does not need the US to do anything. They are quite capable of taking care of it themselves. The “Anointed One” is too busy making friends with our enemies and making himself look like more of a joke while he lies to the American people constantly with the hope that we are stupid enough to buy the change called socialism. He is too busy pleasing Muslims to care about the majority. He could care less about Israel; he would rather hang out with the bad guys and continue ripping off the American people. Facts are facts. Shalom!:)
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
JB Delgado,
True, but then why do you refuse to use them?
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
You mean except those 1.2 million Israeli Arabs (plus Druze, Bedouin, and Christians) with full rights–the one’s who aren’t trying to destroy Israel. Granted, there is discrimination, but there is everywhere even if you are a minority Harvard professor–Skip Gates.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Do they have any idea what the “Christians United for Israel” are about? If anything, they are stealth anti-semites. They believe the Israel needs to exist for the Messiah comes back, and that the Jews must “convert or burn”.
Sorry, but Cantor or anyone else of Jewish background has zero credibility for attending these nutbag meetings, especially when John “Armageddon” Hagee is involved
And of course our So-called Liberal Media doesnt report this fact.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I enjoyed the comment from the man from Santa Monica. Really.
And since he brought it up, I’m still waiting for Yglesias to spell out how, exactly, increasing settlements is a barrier to negotiating a solution. It weakens the Palestinian position, but that’s not the same thing.