Washington’s shameless and slavish devotion to Israel

Mark Perry writes:

A legendary story from our early history has it that Thomas Jefferson so hated John Jay that he ordered Pierre L’Enfant — the civil engineer who designed our capital city — to excise any reference to Jay (including “J Street”) from his plans. The story is apocryphal, but the history behind it isn’t. For Jefferson, Jay was an arch appeaser: his 1795 treaty with Britain provided concessions to a nation we had defeated in our revolution. Jefferson wasn’t the only one who hated the treaty. While Jay’s agreement was ratified by the Congress, he was burned in effigy by New York and Philadelphia mobs and the treaty so stained his reputation that he was never considered for the presidency. Jefferson didn’t make the same mistake. When the Pasha of Barbary demanded ransom for U.S. ships he had seized, Jefferson sent a U.S. naval squadron to punish him. The resulting victory is now celebrated with a half-verse in the Marine Corps hymn (which celebrates the triumph on “the shores of Tripoli”) and a knock-out political slogan that energized a nation: “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

If only Jefferson could see us now. This weekend, the Obama administration promised to turn over $3 billion in stealth fighters to Israel (supplementing the 20 F-35s it will buy with the $2.75 billion in “grants” it gets from Washington) and veto any U.N. resolution that questions Israel’s legitimacy — all in exchange for Israel’s pledge to extend a ten-month partial settlement moratorium for another 90 days. This is a bad idea. And it’s dangerous. There are differences, of course, between the events of the last 24 hours and the crisis that Jefferson faced in 1804. Then, we protested that we were “paying tribute,” now we are “providing incentives.” Then too, Israel is not making any “demands,” they are simply (in Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s words) “insisting.” Oh — and let’s not forget — the pirates of Barbary were America’s “enemy.” That’s a lot different than now; Israel is our “friend.”

This administration’s decision would be shocking were it not so predictable. Back on October 20, State Department spokesman Andrew Shapiro reassured the press that a $60 billion U.S. arms transfer to Saudi Arabia would go forward because “Israel does not object…” Shapiro’s statement passed with nary an eye blink in L’Enfant’s city, where Israel’s approval is apparently required for America to do anything in the Middle East. But Shapiro’s tone-deafness is hardly limited to dime-a-dozen spokespersons. In the wake of General Petreaus’ controversial March testimony that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “foments anti-American sentiment” (stop the presses), Hillary Clinton went out of her way to reassure Israelis that “we are committed to Israel’s security,” a soothing word-for-word mantra repeated by Barack Obama (July 6), Joe Biden (November 7) and any old American official behind a microphone (P.J. Crowley, August 4). The administration doesn’t get it: the question is not whether we are committed to Israel’s security, but whether they’re committed to ours.

The tone-deafness evidenced by Andrew Shapiro is now an all-consuming part of public policy, extending to every part of the American government — and beyond. When Elena Kagan testified during her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, she cited Israel jurist Aharon Barak as her model, because he was the “John Marshall of the State of Israel.” Kagan might well be a brilliant justice, but I would have thought she would cite Marshall as her model. Reminded that Barak was a judicial activist (and therefore not necessarily acceptable for some committee members), Kagan gave a ready explanation: “Israel means a lot to me,” she explained. Enough said. When David Petreaus was criticized by Israel advocates for his March testimony, he backtracked, asking neo-conservative Max Boot (in an email he carelessly sent to a blogger) whether it would help “if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at our quarters last Sun night?” Petreaus is our nation’s most influential military officer since Eisenhower. Guess what? He’s afraid of Israel’s lobby. And when Angela Merkel addressed the U.S. Congress in November of 2009, she didn’t talk about American security, but Israeli security. “Security for the state of Israel is, for me, non-negotiable,” she said. “Whoever threatens Israel also threatens us.” Even senior aides to the otherwise pro-Israel Congress were puzzled. “Maybe she thought she was talking to the Knesset,” one of them said. Finally, Republican Eric Cantor recently told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the new Republican majority would serve as “a check on the administration” in any dispute with Israel — a statement so astonishing that one pro-Israel journalist viewed it as not only unprecedented, but “extraordinary.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 thoughts on “Washington’s shameless and slavish devotion to Israel

  1. DE Teodoru

    Well, finding that, because of their characteristic short tibias, the tush of the Chinese leaders was quite difficult on his back for Obama to kiss and he couldn’t tell on which side it was located on the wily Indians, Obama went back to the ever in the same place and at the same height of his Zionist campaign funders like Saban (who donated $10 million to the Democratic Party and seems to have then deducted that contribution for his income taxes)…Ah well, there’s a lot more where that came from if you’re willing to bend down to that same level all puckered up!

    Does anyone wonder why our kids no longer bother to vote as they did in 2008?

  2. Renfro

    It’s the Jews like Cantor that inspired the old “canards” about Jews that are suppose to be just canards manufactured by anti semites.
    Hillary and all the other non Jewish Israel Firsters are just as bad, even worse, they betray the country for crass personal political power and ego.

    Every day I think about my ancestors turning in their graves at what the trash that passes for leaders in this country have done to it.

    We need another revolution. Seriously. My only political goal now is to live long enough to be at the head of the mob.

  3. eddy mason

    The USA is also, like Israel, going to destroy itself from within.
    Both beat their war drums in tune to their raving and ranting about the need to defend themselves against those ‘others’ who would attack them and those ‘others’ who plot the downfall of these ‘bastions of democracy’.
    We had hoped that Obama would look in the mirror and see what Israel had caused the USA to become, but there is no mirror anymore; it has been replaced by a tunnel!

  4. scott

    Umm, the story about the Corsairs is wrong. We lost 3 flotillas sent to defeat them, all failed utterly. We paid the $1million/yr tribute and thereby gained access to the Med the same way Britain, Spain and France did. They had to pay too. The whole history we learn about 1588, the Spanish Armada, the mighty British Fleet were no match for the Arabs. The whole reason Europeans found the New World was because the Turks ruled the Eastern Mediterranean.

    This is one of the better enduring parts of propaganda foisted upon the Western Mind. And that nasty Marine Corps Hymn has another shameful bit of propaganda in it. “The Halls of Montezuma” that our Marines stormed was a boy’s school. It had been the Spanish castle, built atop a mountain that was holy to the native peoples. The Mexicans didn’t give that palace to their President but rather as a boy’s military academy. We kicked their ass.

    Then again, the facts surrounding the Alamo and the Waco Branch Davidians incident are essentially identical, the only difference is the propaganda around the message.

  5. Norman

    Seems that Scott has a view slightly off key here. He really needs to get his facts out in full scope, not just nit pk, for the convenience of posting his views. Either reference or add the rest of the facts. That’s the problem we have today in this country with the political forces, they only give sound bites that sound good to them.

  6. Christopher Hoare

    I’m always interested in contrarian views. Usually they’re closer to truth than the textbooks. I can accept the voyages to the West only because the East was cut off — it’s mainstream. Never heard of the three flotillas, and I read a fair bit of nautical history. I suspect the tribute is correct. As for the Halls of Montezuma, the palace reads better than a boys’ school.

    I’d like to know the sources of his information.

Comments are closed.