Of course I could be wrong.
"To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson. Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood... By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend."
To paraphrase, Japan won land by right of conquest, and Britain honored that right of its loyal ally. But this offended delicate American sensibilities, and so we pressured Britain to sever its relationship with Japan, then pressured (and ultimately went to war with) Japan in order to reverse that conquest. This was a mistake and led to all kinds of grief, since Japan had in fact been acting as a pro-Western counter to the virulent anti-Western forces in the region.
Now, compare that to the situation in Israel: Israel won land by right of conquest, and the U.S. has honored that right of its loyal ally. But this offends delicate European sensibilities, and so the EU is pressuring us to sever our relationship with Israel. Clearly Buchanan believes that this will lead to a war between the EU and Israel, a war which he belives will be a mistake and lead to all kinds of grief, since Israel is in fact acting as a pro-Western counter to the virulent anti-Western forces in the region. So the moral of the story is that we should continue to back Israel, no matter how much our allies across the Atlantic pressure us to do otherwise.
It's obvious, really. I'm just surprised to see Buchanan make such an about-face from his usual position on the Middle East.