[img]1|left|Ari Noonan||no_popup[/img]The headline over an essay in the opinion section of The New York Times on Sunday was enough to make a reader shudder, if not boil:
“What to Do About Israel?”
It is only a small exaggeration to say we have been saddled with this headline ever since Israel officially was restored 62 years ago last month.
Who is the latest Washington slug to suggest that puerile Israel needs to be spanked?
The world, you see, is composed almost exclusively of grownups — except for that dot on the Middle Eastern map. Israel is run by hopelessly immature men and women. If only those juvenile Jews understood how wise we big people truly are, they wouldn’t go to pieces every time a dastardly fleet of “humanitarian aid” ships, organized, orchestrated, scripted and staffed by Jew-hating radical Muslims in Turkey, tries to break in.
The latest genius to get fed up with Israel defending itself is one Prof. Anthony Cordesman. Interestingly, Mr. Cordesman has defended Israel numerous times in the past, notably when his was a minority opinion.
A Little Puzzling
That is what makes his latest essay, for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, confounding.
He maintains that Israel, surrounded by nations pledged to its destruction ever since 1948, has become a liability to U.S. foreign policy by recklessly offending governments friendly to America while fecklessly defending itself from annihilation.
Before digesting and reviewing what he said, consider the proposition for a moment.
What happened last week in Israel was precisely analogous to six burly thugs violating your family, bursting through the front door of your home at 2 in the morning. You shoot back, kill a couple, and the, ahem, sin-free “international community” brings an icy sledgehammer on your head for responding “excessively.”
When Israel intercepted the terrorist fleet that tried to destroy its legitimate, and recognized, blockade — designed to prevent the smuggling of arms to the terrorist government that runs Gaza — a favorite anti-Semitic canard was exhumed.
The Jews used “disproportionate” force.
I am pretty gray. I do not remember such an odious charge being leveled against any other democratic nation. The acerbic, poisonous accusation accompanies analyses “from the international community” after every time that Israel is attacked. It says that Israel, one of the smallest nations on the planet, is a bully. Isn’t that rich?
(Fortunately, a few days before, virginal North Korean thugs used model force, not excessive at all, in sinking a South Korea ship — and darned if the world didn’t suffer from a case of strategic, instant laryngitis.)
Even though it is crucial to Sunday’s zinger of an essay, we never learn from the so-eager-to-agree Times’ essayist why, after decades of defending Israel’s motives and tactics, Mr. Cordesman suddenly has changed horses. How was this night of confrontation with a sworn enemy different from all others?
Perhaps the journalist was not negligent. Upon closer inspection, we find that Mr. Cordesman appears to have been down on his haunches, eagerly awaiting the next assault against Israel — as there surely would be — so he could flip opinions about Israel that have been gnawing at him for years.
When you read the following Cordesman opinion (http://csis.org/publication/israel-strategic-liability), understand that it is part of a much larger monograph he wrote minutes after learning of the blockade incident.
That is terrifically revealing.
Said Mr. Cordesman, suffering from what smells like buyer’s remorse:
Israel’s government should act on the understanding that the long-term nature of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship will depend on Israel clearly and actively seeking peace with the Palestinians—the kind of peace that is in Israel’s own strategic interests. Israelis should understand that the United States opposes expansion and retention of its settlements and its efforts to push Palestinians out of greater Jerusalem. Israeli governments should plan Israeli military actions that make it clear that Israel will use force only to the level actually required, that carefully consider humanitarian issues from the start, and that have a clear post-combat plan of action to limit the political and strategic impact of its use of force. And Israel should not conduct a high-risk attack on Iran in the face of the clear U.S. “red light” from both the Bush and Obama administrations. Israel should be sensitive to the fact that its actions directly affect U.S. strategic interests in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and it must be as sensitive to U.S. strategic concerns as the United States is to those of Israel.
I presume Mr. Cordesman is a Christian. I presume, in condemning Israel, that he decided the Jews of Israel need to be taught a lesson from those who ask “What Would Jesus Do?”
Mr. Cordesman would have Israel pause in mid-trigger pull, ask, “What Would the United States Do?” and only then proceed.
