| Friday,
July 28, 2006 The Fate
of Israel?
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_fate_of_israel.htm
-- Roland Dobbins
I have asked Joel Rosenberg for his thoughts on this. I'm still going
over it. Unfortunately, much of it parallels what I have said for years.
(see below)
Israel has few allies in the region. They have not managed to make allies
of the Christians who had every reason to dislike the Muslims under whom
they have lived for nigh onto a thousand years. The treatment of Christian
citizens of Israel over the years since 1948 can charitably be described as
cold disdain. Their war on the Lebanese Army may make sense, but so
far I have not seen why they are doing it; yet I don't see any way that
Israel can suppress Hizbollah without a strong Lebanese Army under control
of a Lebanese government determined to maintain a monopoly on military force
inside Lebanon -- the Cedar Revolution, writ large. I haven't seen any signs
that Israel acts as if it understands this.
The alternative to a Lebanese government with enough power to disarm the
militias and enforce peace and order in Lebanon is occupation of Lebanon.
The possible occupation powers are Israel and Syria. Israel wasn't able to
pacify southern Lebanon last time. Is this a case of "this time for sure"?
I keep looking for silver linings here.
(Continued below)
========
Rush Limbaugh is now trying to excuse the
Republican Party's decade long spending spree and totally anti-conservative
actions with "these things take time." I would have thought that if
"Big Government Conservatives" had any thought to reduce the size or sphere
of government in any area whatever, they would have done it. It may be that
some parts of the federal government need strengthening, although with the
exception of funding X program and prizes for technology developments I
don't know what they are; but the Republicans, with control of the House,
Senate, and White House have grown all parts of the Federal Government for
purposes I don't discern.
In fact they have destroyed Federalism in education, and done it in
exactly the way many of us predicted that the federal system would be
destroyed once we brought in Federal Aid to Education in any way. There are
no "no strings" Federal programs. None. Zero. There never have been. Those
who pay the piper call the tune. Always. And given that the Washington DC
school system has always been under the direct control of the Federal
Government, what made anyone think they could do better with the schools in
the several states? Yes, Military Base Schools are pretty good.
Excellent in many cases. But those have never been the models that the
educrats in Washington have used.
If you want to see how good the Federal government is at education, look
at the Washington DC schools. And if you want to improve education in DC,
require EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE from President, Vice President,
Senators, Senatorial Staff, US Supreme Court, House of Representatives,
staffs for all those -- require as a condition of employment that if
they have school age children, those kids must go to school in DC public
schools. Of course that will never happen. But it would do the trick.
The same requirement should be put on state employees, and particularly
on the children of teachers, administrators, janitors, and all other school
people: require their children to go to public schools. But again that will
never happen. The education unions and bureaucracy would never stand for
that, and for good reason.
So much for the Republicans in power in DC. They added to the destruction
of federalism in the school systems.
They have spent money like drunken sailors, much of it on corporate
welfare.
Under the Republicans earmarking defense and science appropriations went
from shameful to ten time shameful, as if Congressional staffers are somehow
more qualified to allocate research and development money than the National
Science Foundation. The NSF has its problems, but it is still one of the
better run institutions in Washington. It doesn't fund many "minority
report" grant requests and relies far too heavily on the "peer review"
process, but it certainly funds more successes than narrow earmarking. And
no, I wouldn't remove earmarking entirely. Sometimes the Congress does a
good thing by funding an unpopular project that goes counter to conventional
wisdom and scores a hit. But, alas, not often. Usually earmark projects are
those that can't get money by competing for grants, but get the favor of the
local godfather, excuse me, Congress critter.
The only hope the Republicans have is that the Democrats are so much
worse. But: is the nation better off with Republicans in control of both
houses and the White House? If we had had a Democratic House over the past
two years, would we be better or worse off?
Apparently the United States has no political parties that can be trusted
with governing. We need, apparently, to have different parties in control of
the House, the Senate, and the White House. It's sad, but it's pretty clear
that the Republicans don't know how to govern any more; and frantically
trying to do things to encourage social conservatives while continuing to
spend ourselves broke is a pretty thin way to get past the situation.
Or am I just discouraged this morning?
==========
I am not Taki's biggest fan, and I can't agree with all he says here, but
this is worth attention:
http://takistopdrawer.us/index.html
I have heard many of Mr. Bush's advisors speaking of a new world order in
the Middle East. There was more of that talk after the operations in
Afghanistan and before the fall of Baghdad. It quieted down after Fallujah
and got even quieter as the casualties rose with no sign of pacification,
but there are still those who think that if we just eliminate all the nests
of vipers -- Syria and Iran in particular -- then things will go well in
Iraq.
I fear that is setting us objectives impossible of attainment.
Rush Limbaugh has taken to saying that "neocon" is code for "Jewish" and
those who say "neocon" are anti-Semitic. Since that accusation ends all
conversation, it's a pretty effective technique. Of course it persuades no
one.
My prejudices are for civilization. If I have to choose a side in the
Arab-Israeli conflict I'll take Israel. That statement would be true of
nearly everyone I know and hold in high regard. It does not meant that I
endorse all of Israel's actions, internal or external. Their treatment of
the Christian citizens of Israel has been both unjust and unwise, driving
that once powerful faction into identification of themselves as Arabs, not
as Christian citizens of Israel. The Muslem citizens of Israel are generally
in actual alliance with the Palestinians. It might we worth analyzing why
this should be, but I have given it up since every attempt brings
accusations that I am a sympathizer with terrorists.
It is never easy being a voice of reason...
================
Joel Rosenberg on the fate of
Israel
The more I think about this, the less I
think of his analysis; he's mixing problems with strengths. Just to pick
one: it isn't advantageous, on balance, to be the underdog; it's
remarkably disadvantageous -- except if the goal is to win the CNN
narrative.
And allies? Other than the US, Israel has
no allies, so there's none to lose -- and the US/Israeli alliance is, at
present, stronger than it ever has been. (If he wants to look at the
time that Israel really did have other allies, and lost them, he'd have
to look back to '56, and draw conclusions about that: Israel's two major
allies, Britain and France, were removed from the alliance off by
Eisenhower, who did it for what he perceived of as the US's interest in
the area. Major mistakes all around, there.)
For a guy who prides himself on his
knowledge of history, he's either woefully uninformed about or
deliberately ignoring much of the last half century.
Public discussions about strategy and grand
strategy a problem in a democracy? Huh? Maybe he should think about
that, again.
That said, I don't think things are going
well, for anybody. It appears that Olmert really has made the decision
to use ground forces only along the border. That's a loss for Israel --
a 20-1 kill rate is far too expensive -- and it also is for Hezbollah
which has, pace Wretchard -- chosen to use what were guerillas to defend
fixed positions.
It's starting to look like there'll be a
ceasefire/hudna in perhaps three weeks or so, with a
half-life-to-failure to be measured in double-digit hours. Lebanon
hasn't gotten the point that the cost of the toleration of Hezbollah is
too high; Siniora is trying to put it all back in the box.
But it won't -- it can't -- go back to the
status quo ante, although Hezbollah can reliably be counted on not to
get that. Ditto for the UN.
I did note the reference to Dr. Sultan that
Ed sent you. She's well worth listening to, IMHO. But she's very much a
lonely voice in the wilderness.
More thoughts later this weekend, I think;
my fan group is in town for our yearly get together, so it may be early
next week. . .
Regarding Suez: My father always thought the US intervention in the Suez
Crisis was a turning point in Western History, and the beginning of the end.
He did not say that Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West
as it commits suicide, but he would have agreed that all the
rationalizations of forcing an end to the British-French-Israeli recovery of
the Canal after they had achieved military victory was an act of the suicide
of the West.
I pretty well grew up with that view. The Canal was built by an
Anglo-French company, it was operated in the world's interest, and there was
no legitimacy of Nasser's seizure. In my judgment. But then in my judgment
Jimmy Carter's giveaway of the Panama Canal was a strategic blunder of great
magnitude even for that silly man. If ever there were a person consoled as
the West commits suicide it has to be Jimmy Carter.
I agree with much of what Joel says: except that winning the CNN
narrative seems more important to many of the "statesmen" who are making
these decisions than actually winning something important. I am reminded of
Pareto's Foxes and Lions and what happens when Foxes rule. And the Lions
have not awakened yet, in Israel or in the United States.
Until both Israel and the United States understand what is at stake in
Lebanon, I have the horrible feeling that the analysis is correct. All sides
here seem to act as if the goal is to win the world opinion poll.
And I say again: if this war in Lebanon, which destroyed the Cedar
Revolution, turns out to be no more than a big reprisal for the provocations
of the border incidents, then Israel has not only made a disproportionate
response, she has made a major strategic blunder.
Regarding allies: I say again: Israel must have an alliance with SOMEONE
who can control Lebanon. There are not many candidates for that job, and
there seem to be fewer at each stage of this game. And it does not look to
me as if the Israeli leadership understands this.
==
Just a quick note before I finish my
comments on Theodoracopulos: I'm fully in accord with you that winning
the CNN narrative is far too important to far too many politicians
involved in this. I don't know how I could possibly agree more strongly.
Joel
==================
I want to thank all those who have recently subscribed. I am catching up
on enrolling all of the recent new subscriptions and renewals. Please keep
those coming. And thanks again.
Friday TOP
Current Mail
|
