It's All Morally Relative - End Support for Israel

It's All Morally Relative - End Support for Israel
An Analysis of the After Effects of the Terrorist Attack
by R. Alexander
September 19, 2001

Many of us were surprised to hear responses coming from both U.S.citizens and our so-called allies suggesting the U.S. somehow deserved the terrorist attack. With righteous moral indignation, these enlightened critics, suddenly experts on terrorism, lecture us, claiming "this would not have happened if the U.S. hadn't been intervening in the Middle East." This criticism is said with a straight face by Americans who see no problem driving an oversized SUV that gets 12 miles per gallon, while condemning the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1990 which assured them the continued use of their environmentally irresponsible gas guzzlers.

What angers Middle Eastern terrorists most about U.S. involvement in the Middle East is U.S. support of Israel. A 2001 State Department report on global terrorism stated that the goal of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization is to expel Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries and overthrow non-Islamic regimes. Without U.S. support, which includes money, weapons, and aircraft, most political and military analysts agree that Israel would cease to exist, or at best, disintegrate into tiny pockets. The U.S. gives aid to many of our allies to support democracy and protect our security interests throughout the world. Israel is just one of many democratic countries the U.S. believes is necessary to arm in order to protect our own security interests. There is strong evidence that Israel's cooperation in the "strategic consensus" against the former Soviet Union helped bring the Soviet Union down.

After the terrorist attack, it seems even more imperative to continue to protect our security interests by giving aid to Israel. Unfortunately, there are those who would conclude otherwise. The thousands of Americans killed in the attack has given critics of U.S. aid to Israel the chance they need to use people's emotions for their own political purposes. The terrorist attack is viewed by them as evidence the U.S. is supporting Israel to its detriment. There are already many signs that support for U.S. aid to Israel is dwindling. One is the prevalence of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism has long existed within the U.S. and subtly exists within its media. Although the Jewish lobby is powerful, anti-Semitic sentiments are deeply entrenched in society. The recent U.N. conference on racism, expected to be taken over by anti-Semitic discussion, resulted in the U.S. only sending a low-level delegation which walked out midway in protest. The conference adopted arguably anti-Semitic language criticizing Israel but not the Palestinians for hostile relations in Israel, ongoing evidence that the leadership in the rest of the world condones anti-Semitism and is pressuring the U.S. into withdrawing its support for Israel.

Standing up for Israel is much more difficult done all alone. The U.S. no longer enjoys a position of moral leadership in the world, as evidenced by its removal from the U.N. Human Rights Commission earlier this year. Instead, known human rights violators Libya, Syria, and the Sudan have been given seats on the Commission within the past two years. This strengthens the argument of moral relativists that the U.S.' position supporting Israel and stamping out terrorism is not necessarily any more morally defensible than the terrorists' position towards the U.S. and Israel.

Are the moral relativists right? Is the U.S.' democratic government, with its selfish security interest in Israel, no more morally correct than a terrorist? One obvious way to analyze the moral righteousness of a nation's government is to look at how it treats its own ethnic citizens. The U.S. is home to more nationalities than any other nation, yet its citizens live in peace alongside each other, unlike in many ethnically diverse nations. Arabs live next door to Jews. Arabs vote and campaign for Jewish candidates, and vice versa. A former Arab roommate of mine nonchalantly explained when we first met that she was Palestinian Christian, not Jewish, "but we're all pretty much the same thing." Ironically, since the U.S. is home to so many different nationalities, including many refugees who moved here to avoid ethnic strife in their own, undemocratic homelands, the terrorists not only killed "Americans" but killed Americans of Arab descent.

Eliminating support for Israel will be tempting to Congress. It will save taxpayers money (critics of U.S. aid to Israel generally fail to point out that the U.S. also sends large amounts of aid to Arab countries, particularly Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority). It will allow Congress to appear, in a morally relative way, as being "fair" to both Jews and Arabs. After all, superficially, it appears as if Israel and the Palestinians are both equally to blame for initiating bombing and terrorism in Israel. The U.S. media does a good job of presenting it this way. But which religion's holy book encourages killing by teaching that young men who are killed in the name of Allah are rewarded in paradise with 72 virgins to be their sex slaves, and are then allowed to invite 72 of their friends to join them in paradise and receive their own 72 virgins? Not to mention 28 pre-pubescent boys for their pleasures also. With values like these, it is understandable why the parents of terrorist suicide bombers celebrate their sons' deaths.

Last week's terrorist attacks have forever changed the geopolitical balance of power, but not in the way naïve U.S. conservatives hope for. Sadly, the world is not going to rally around the U.S. as the U.S. stamps out terrorism. Over the last decade, ever since the global threat of communism was eliminated with the fall of communism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, the U.S.' reputation as a unilateral superpower has all but disappeared. This is no doubt thanks to former President Clinton, whose foreign policy in the 1990's consisted of smiling and shaking hands with all types of world leaders at numerous accords, conferences, meetings, etc., desperately attempting to create a legacy, while accomplishing nothing but meaningless words on paper.

Under Clinton's leadership, America's response to terrorism has been weak. Afraid of another Vietnam, America under Clinton has been too afraid to commit its troops, afraid of the sight on TV of American troops being killed. When Bin Laden's al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, the U.S. retaliated with a paltry, unsuccessful attack on Iraq. When the al Qaeda killed American troops in Somalia in October of 1993, Clinton hurriedly pulled our troops out, sending a signal to the world that the U.S. would rather flee from terrorism than risk any American lives. In 1996, Bin Laden's organization bombed a U.S. housing complex in Saudi Arabia, with little ramification. Later that year, according to the State Department, Bin Laden issued a fatwa, or religious order that said, "it was the duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens civilian or military and their allies everywhere." When Bin Laden bombed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the U.S. responded with a paltry missile assault on Bin Laden's training camp in Afghanistan and on a suspected chemical weapons plant in Sudan. Bin Laden's followers have been tied in the past to plots to assassinate former President Clinton and blow up American 747 airliners over the Pacific Ocean. His organization is considered responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last year. Yet there has been no serious effort by the U.S. to eradicate him or his followers, and U.S. retaliation has been no more than a slap on the hand.

The world watched as Clinton and the Democrats greatly reduced our military defense, smugly confident of our peacekeeping abilities. Just weeks ago, the liberal Reverend Al Sharpton, who is currently running for President, stated on Fox News for all the world to hear, "In a time that we no longer have a Cold War, there is no real threat to American security." The message the U.S. has sent the world in the last decade is that we are weak. The U.S. government is afraid of committing troops in another ghastly Vietnam quagmire, aware that hunting down Bin Laden and his numerous followers may end up as guerilla warfare in Afghanistan. Although most Americans are presently in favor of sending our troops to Afghanistan, as time goes by and Americans realize they will be sending their own sons and daughters, their fervor for retaliation will diminish. They will question why it is important to retaliate, and whether the U.S. should even be present in the Middle East. Inevitably, they will question U.S. aid to Israel.

Recently, conservatives and Christians in the U.S. have emerged as the strongest supporters of Israel, probably because of the recent leadership in Israel of hawkish, conservative former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This association of Christianity with Israel is an irritation to the current fad of enlightened, moral relativists in the U.S., who dislike Christianity because it has moral absolutes. The Bible commands, “Thou shalt not kill.” Since Christianity, as well as Judaism, teach that killing is wrong, their adherents are accused of being "intolerant" of other religions such as Islam, which is interpreted (probably incorrectly) by radical Muslims that killing in the name of Allah is a virtue. In our newly enlightened era of moral relativism, which pervades the halls of Congress as well as public opinion and the media, every viewpoint is equally valid as any another. This attitude is reflected in the response of the U.S. critics, who cannot discern that the terrorist attack was clearly wrong nor that it is imperative to punish and stop the terrorists, because they have elevated “tolerance” over teaching that killing is wrong. The U.S. critics conclude that the cost of the terrorists taking more lives is not as important as appearing tolerant and not stepping on anyone’s toes, and so they will bog the U.S. down in petty discussions over what might possibly, remotely happen. Any forceful retaliation is labeled by them as initiating violence – conveniently forgetting that the terrorists started it. Meanwhile, the terrorists will continue to kill and maim, wholly unconcerned with "tolerance" for non-Muslims.

Consequently, it is just a matter of time before U.S. leaders take the easy way out and desert Israel, hoping by demonstrating their “tolerance” they will escape the wrath of the equally morally correct terrorists.

The author can be reached at ralexand@krl.org

Israel mistreats no one. Don't buy Arab bullshit. The Israelis are saints compared to the Arabs.

Really I can think for myself, without help from the Arabs.

The Israelis are fighting for their survival, and you are one of their supporters. Fine, but I'd be silly to think that the Israelis (and maybe you) are any more objective than the Arabs, under the circumstances, and if the face of the type of enemy that America found for herself last Tuesday.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't buy it that the Israelis are saints in comparison to anyone in this ******-up world.

Of course we are clannish. Ghettoes, expulsions, pogroms, et al, are great fun. We didn't want to share the joy with everyone else.

What I said was, "Jews were most often minorities, and were clannish, as were many peoples."

I should have said, 'as were most peoples.' WWII being an exception that we all pray is an anomoly, I'm saying that the experience of the Jews are less unique either in the good or bad respects, than many would have you believe. Throughout history, people treated eachother like sh**. Minorities and foreigners had a tough time, especially if they were successful and envied (and clannish), as the Jews often were.

George Washington was right about avoiding foreign entanglements. However, the U.S. media propaganda machine has severely disciplined any politician who dares discuss these matters publicly. The most recent example was destruction of Pat Buchanan.

Thus our political leadership is of one mind. Our "leaders" know that to put America first is to commit political suicide. There is no debate about free trade with China, no debate about U.S troops in the Middle East, no debate about troops in Kosovo, no debate about open borders with Mexico.

Our leaders are left to debating the size of some dinky tax cut or whether prescription drug coverage is an inalienable right.

It is interesting that if we were all in a room together we wouldn't talk like we write here. It is also interesting that as the thread keeps getting longer one side becomes more saintly and the other becomes more satanic.

I don't ask that Israel cease to exist or for them not to defend their country. I ask them to be just. You say I am one-sided, if I have failed to demand anything of the Arabs then that is my fault and I do not want to seem unjust. The Palestinians must stop their suicide bombings and like I said previously they must, as Joseph Sobran writes, act like Gandhi to give the Israelis no pretext for their violence. The Holy Father has side that both sides must stop the cycle of violence and so it must be. There is enough evil to go around and it is time for both sides to stop.

My only concern is for America. I keep going back to George Washington, remember him? Father of our Country and all that. Here is some more words from his Farewell Address:

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of a Republican Government...Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests..."

That is my concern that the interests of America are being usurped for the benefit of a foreign country and a foreign peoples. Those that wish to base their uncritical and passionate support of Israel, to the detriment of America, on grounds of Christianity do so on a shaky foundation. Their reading of the Bible is based on private interpretation and that often leads to many false readings and is the reason for such a proliferation of churches.

Again, for the benefit of the Israel-firsters, Israel has a right to exist and defend themselves. Palestinians have to stop their attacks. Israel has to stop their injustices. Both sides have to stop the violence. My concern is for America and the preservation of its liberty and the restoration of our constitional republic. We must not become so attached to one country or so hate another that it blinds us to what is best for this country.

Well said. Considering that the Muslim Mosque is built on top of the Temple built by Solomon, one can hardly ignore that the Jewish people had been in control of the land at one point before the next group of Muslims moved in. It's certainly not a piece of land that someone stuck a pin in and said that's where we'll put 'em. The area has passed back and forth between different groups throughout the ages. It also was only a desert before the Jewish people reclaimed it, and now it's arable and prosperous, which must irk them no end, for the God of Abraham seems to have blessed the current occupants more than the Allah of Mohammed ever did.

From what I can tell, if Israel didn't exist, these terrorist groups would hate us anyway. Israel just seems to be another excuse to do so. To the terrorists, we are Infidel, the Great Satan, not to mention generally more prosperous than they are. The last is the least important to them, which is why Jihad is more important than their working to improve their living standards.

That "tiny bit of land" just happens to possess the third most powerful military in the world, courtesy of technology transfers and countless billions of dollars from the United States, not through any amazing skill or genius of its people. Those arab countries may be larger in geographical terms, but except for a tiny cadre of oil shieks and nasty dictators, the people are mired in third world squalor. To pretend that rock throwing, poverty stricken youngsters pose a threat to a military and intelligence force (unlike our pathetic CIA, the Mossad is a superb and deadly agency) that is light years ahead of any of its neighbors in every sense of the word, is ridiculous.

No one really wanted Israel until the Jews had made it into a productive and attractive country. The Palestinians were offered a homeland in another one of the countries in the region but they wouldn't take the offer. The land had belonged to Israel and they went back to reclaim it after WWII. The British had control of it then. Read Exodus by Leon Uris. Israel has given far too much to the Palestinians now. By the way. There is a mosque on the Temple Mount where the Moslems claim that Mohammed ascended into heaven. Guess what! Mohammed never went to Jerusalem. I remember reading that about a year ago.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.