"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none."
- Thomas Jefferson
The Big Question: How should the U.S. respond to Israel?
The Hill
June 1, 2010
Israel storms an aid ship and cancels Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trip to Washington.
How should the U.S. respond?
John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:
Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said:
James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, said:
Richard S. Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and professor at MIT, said:
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit said:
Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said:
Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:
Peter Navarro, professor of Economics and Public Policy at U.C. Irvine, said:
- Thomas Jefferson
The Big Question: How should the U.S. respond to Israel?
The Hill
June 1, 2010
Israel storms an aid ship and cancels Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trip to Washington.
How should the U.S. respond?
John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:
The U.S. response should start with moves to disentangle our nation from so many unnecessary and dangerous alliances. Next, it should start whatever process is needed to cease all foreign aid - Israel included. The absurdity of sending foreign aid both to Israel and her avowed enemies is costly in many ways besides being unconstitutional. Our nation has enough problems without sticking the U.S. nose into another.
Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said:
The United States should show full support for Israel, which did what any other sovereign nation would do in defense of its people and borders. Israel was responding to a deliberate provocation by a flotilla of ships seeking to break the blockade of Hamas controlled Gaza. This was a premeditated provocation by the leaders of the flotilla.
Once again, those who are unilaterally opposed to Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself against an enemy which seeks its destruction have cynically used the innocent people of Gaza to further their goals
While proclaiming themselves to be motivated by humanitarian concerns, the Free Gaza Movement is comprised of longtime anti-Israel extremists who advocate using confrontational tactics against Israel. Organizers of the flotilla embarked on a course that put in danger the lives of those aboard.
The loss of life is greatly regrettable and could have been prevented had the activists refrained from violence. The Israel Defense Forces had no choice but to defend themselves from the violent onslaught.
Once again, those who are unilaterally opposed to Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself against an enemy which seeks its destruction have cynically used the innocent people of Gaza to further their goals
While proclaiming themselves to be motivated by humanitarian concerns, the Free Gaza Movement is comprised of longtime anti-Israel extremists who advocate using confrontational tactics against Israel. Organizers of the flotilla embarked on a course that put in danger the lives of those aboard.
The loss of life is greatly regrettable and could have been prevented had the activists refrained from violence. The Israel Defense Forces had no choice but to defend themselves from the violent onslaught.
James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, said:
Once again Israel's bad behavior has dug a deep hole for itself, and we're left debating whether or not to jump in with them.
To begin with, the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal and immoral. Gaza is one of the poorest places on earth (I've been there and was overwhelmed by what I experienced). Israel blames the Palestinians for their own plight, but Israel is the occupying power that has de-developed and/or strangled Gaza for more than four decades. What they are doing now amounts to racially motivated collective punishment against an entire population.
The punishment of Gaza is extreme. People there (including US NGO's) are unable to import basic materials needed to rebuild thousands of destroyed homes following the January 2009 war. In addition there are severe shortages of potable water, power, fuel and medicines. Israel's argument that "there is no crisis" owes to the fact that Gaza's population are maintained at bare subsistence.
This naval assault was unnecessary, brutal and heavy handed – a crude and disproportionate use of power done to prove a point. What Israel will do now is display the same heavy handedness in their propaganda efforts: They will deny, they will intimidate opponents and they will portray themselves as victims (it helps that they are still holding the ships and their passengers incommunicado – thus giving themselves time to craft an uncontested response).
The U.S. has too much at stake to play Israeli coat-holder or cheerleader in this fight. This week, the White House was hoping to give a boost to Israeli-Palestinian peace talks – forget that for now. They were also hoping to build international support for sanctions against Iran – forget that, too. And the White House was looking to mark the year anniversary of Obama's Cairo speech – failing to criticize Israel's behavior on the high seas, will dampen those Cairo+1 celebrations.
So what to do with Israel? If they are a friend and an ally we value, we tell them the truth, tell them that their behavior is unacceptable and is only making the world more dangerous for us all. And demand that they change.
Or we can, as we done too many times in the past, jump in the hole they've dug and wallow around with them until we're both a mess and then spend the next year or so trying to clean up.
To begin with, the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal and immoral. Gaza is one of the poorest places on earth (I've been there and was overwhelmed by what I experienced). Israel blames the Palestinians for their own plight, but Israel is the occupying power that has de-developed and/or strangled Gaza for more than four decades. What they are doing now amounts to racially motivated collective punishment against an entire population.
The punishment of Gaza is extreme. People there (including US NGO's) are unable to import basic materials needed to rebuild thousands of destroyed homes following the January 2009 war. In addition there are severe shortages of potable water, power, fuel and medicines. Israel's argument that "there is no crisis" owes to the fact that Gaza's population are maintained at bare subsistence.
This naval assault was unnecessary, brutal and heavy handed – a crude and disproportionate use of power done to prove a point. What Israel will do now is display the same heavy handedness in their propaganda efforts: They will deny, they will intimidate opponents and they will portray themselves as victims (it helps that they are still holding the ships and their passengers incommunicado – thus giving themselves time to craft an uncontested response).
The U.S. has too much at stake to play Israeli coat-holder or cheerleader in this fight. This week, the White House was hoping to give a boost to Israeli-Palestinian peace talks – forget that for now. They were also hoping to build international support for sanctions against Iran – forget that, too. And the White House was looking to mark the year anniversary of Obama's Cairo speech – failing to criticize Israel's behavior on the high seas, will dampen those Cairo+1 celebrations.
So what to do with Israel? If they are a friend and an ally we value, we tell them the truth, tell them that their behavior is unacceptable and is only making the world more dangerous for us all. And demand that they change.
Or we can, as we done too many times in the past, jump in the hole they've dug and wallow around with them until we're both a mess and then spend the next year or so trying to clean up.
Richard S. Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and professor at MIT, said:
Setting traps for Israel is a popular Arab (and more generally Muslim) pastime. A woman aboard the vessels headed for Gaza was reported to have concluded that either success in reaching Gaza or martyrdom were comparably desirable outcomes. A more sober participant realized that even without martyrdom the expedition represented a win-win situation for the blockade runners. Either they made it or Israel would be condemned for stopping them (with violent response to violent provocation an added benefit). The issue of humanitarian aid was a joke from the beginning. The supplies aboard the ferries constitute a small fraction of the humanitarian aid and supplies regularly passed into Gaza from both Israel and Egypt.
However, the condemnation of Israel by Western Europe (and, under Obama, the US) is largely neutralized by its reflexively automatic and disproportionate nature. Who can take seriously condemnations whose vehemence would not appear in condemnations of major human rights violations elsewhere in the world. One may speak of Israel losing the propaganda war, but, at least as concerns Western Europe, there is an obvious question as to how one can lose something that was already lost long ago. The situation with the US is more complicated, but, despite the apparent wish of the current administration to emulate Western Europe, the popular enthusiasm in the US for jihadists remains limited. Under the circumstances, the best thing the US could do would be to recognize Israel’s legitimate legal position, but to express regret for the loss of life and offer the pious hope that such situations be avoided in the future. This might be accompanied by an offer to deliver verifiably humanitarian assistance to Gaza via neutral parties. Whether the current administration has the discipline to pursue such a measured policy is a legitimate matter of concern.
However, the condemnation of Israel by Western Europe (and, under Obama, the US) is largely neutralized by its reflexively automatic and disproportionate nature. Who can take seriously condemnations whose vehemence would not appear in condemnations of major human rights violations elsewhere in the world. One may speak of Israel losing the propaganda war, but, at least as concerns Western Europe, there is an obvious question as to how one can lose something that was already lost long ago. The situation with the US is more complicated, but, despite the apparent wish of the current administration to emulate Western Europe, the popular enthusiasm in the US for jihadists remains limited. Under the circumstances, the best thing the US could do would be to recognize Israel’s legitimate legal position, but to express regret for the loss of life and offer the pious hope that such situations be avoided in the future. This might be accompanied by an offer to deliver verifiably humanitarian assistance to Gaza via neutral parties. Whether the current administration has the discipline to pursue such a measured policy is a legitimate matter of concern.
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit said:
Were Israel an outlaw state like North Korea or Iran, the United States would bluster a bit but the actual response would involve kid gloves. The question for Israel is, does it actually gain anything from trying to be part of a liberal international order that is increasingly stacked against it, or would it be better off taking its cue from nations that, by being the international system's problem children, seem to get away with much more?
Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said:
Obama has to stiffen his backbone and resolve to ignore AIPAC and the Israel lobby. He must insist that Israel dismantle the settlements and agree to come to the peace table. He must also insist that the Palestinian leadership cease inflammatory language and reject Hamas.
Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:
Israel's fate will be determined by Israelis. Our ability to improve the lot of Israelis by help or condemnation is about as great as it was to protect Louisiana from Katrina or now BP. Collectively, these situations regarding America's self-appointed globalist mission bring to mind the comments of the famous Jung analyst Barbara Hannah: "Thinking you can save the world is just childish."
Peter Navarro, professor of Economics and Public Policy at U.C. Irvine, said:
The core problem right now with U.S.-Israeli relations is the increasing lack of political support for President Obama. Netanyahu sees this as a free pass to conduct business as usual in Israel, which means West Bank settlement activity and other hard line moves such as the aid ship incident. These are dangerous times that need presidential focus – but the president is distracted by other pressing matters.
Last edited:
