Natural Allies

Josh Marshall notes Joe Lieberman fishing for Jewish votes on behalf of John McCain in Florida:

''The Democratic Party, I believe, respectfully, has left the strongest roots of its foreign policy and national security,'' Lieberman said, adding that McCain "has always believed that Israel is our natural ally, from the beginning of its modern existence to this day in the war against Islamic extremists and terrorists.''

Now I assume that most practical Democratic Party politicians are going to want to deny that there's any real difference between the parties here. But I think Lieberman's probably correct to see a disagreement here between people with the Lieberman/McCain worldview and sensible people. As Lieberman/McCain see it, Israel has long been the subject of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims. Then, on September 11, 2001 the United States was hit by Muslim terrorists. Ergo, the US and Israel are allies in a common war against a common threat.

On a different, more accurate account, while there are unquestionably some points of ideological similarity between Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda these should all be seen as separate entities with discrete agendas. It's a huge mistake to, for example, assume that every Hamas militant or supporter shares anything resembling the grandiose overall al-Qaeda vision. Hamas and Hezbollah both arise in the context of concrete national conflicts and thus have different textures and aims from al-Qaeda (and, for that matter, from each other). The effort to run all these groups together has been a useful way for Israeli politicians to try to secure US support for their policies, and has been politically expedient for many American politicians, but it's ultimately founded on serious analytical errors and, as such, doesn't lead either Israel or the United States to adopt smart policies that serves our respective countries respective interests.

Comments

"analytical errors" would be a polite way to put it. "Brazen lies," a less polite, but more accurate label.

Posted by Mike | January 17, 2008 1:59 PM

Here's a suggestion for a campaign slogan on this issue:

"Israel is on the front line in the war against terror. Let's keep it that way."

Posted by Jim W | January 17, 2008 2:02 PM

it's ultimately founded on serious analytical errors and, as such, doesn't lead either Israel or the United States to adopt smart policies that serves our respective countries respective interests.

In as much as this speaks to the cluster-* in Iraq, I suspect many Israelis would agree with you.

Posted by Jake | January 17, 2008 2:04 PM

Not to mention, Hezbollah is a Shi'ite organization. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. They're not exactly on the same side.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 17, 2008 2:09 PM

American and Israel are natural allies, not because Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda have similar agendas, but because America and Israel have similar agendas, namely, military dominance of the Middle East. America's main reason is to secure the oil; but in addition, for religious reasons, one-third of American citizens are fanatical about wanting a Jewish government in Jerusalem. In this respect, Israel is just the point of America's spear.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 17, 2008 2:10 PM

So McCain wants to get some of that old "Joementum". Sorry, couldn't restrain myself.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 17, 2008 2:16 PM

"Hamas and Hezbollah both arise in the context of concrete national conflicts and thus have different textures and aims from al-Qaeda "

So you agree that Walt and Mearsheimer are completely wrong when they blame 911 on US support for Israel

Posted by Dave | January 17, 2008 3:04 PM

This is a really excellent post. I look forward to the book.

Posted by DivGuy | January 17, 2008 3:15 PM

So you agree that Walt and Mearsheimer are completely wrong when they blame 911 on US support for Israel
Posted by Dave | January 17, 2008 3:04 PM

I suppose you already know quite clearly that Bin Laden listed three grievances: (1) American troops in Saudi Arabia, (2) American support for Israel, (3) American sanctions regime against Iraq.

The issue is too important for childish gotcha games.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 17, 2008 3:20 PM

Dave,
While Walt and Mearsheimer almost certainly overstate the importance of US support for Israel to 9/11 (US troop presence in Saudi Arabia was more important) your argument to that effect seems to require some kind of fallacy along the lines of the affirming the consequent discussion a few days back.

The fact that Hamas and Hezbollah are have largely localized goals would be evidence against them having a primary motivation towards something that happens out of their region.

But since al qaeda has more global goals, there is nothing in the fact that they are different than Hamas that would prevent them by being motivated by something that happens in Hamas' local area.

While it doesn't seem to be the case that al qaeda is primarily bothered by the jewish presense in their Islamic crescent, there is nothing about them having global structures which prevents that from being the case.

Posted by Lon | January 17, 2008 3:22 PM

Bottom line is:

ending occupation of Iraq saves us 100 billions per year, and we could probably double these savings by adopting less paranoid and over-armed military doctrine. What is the downside?

If the only downside is that Israeli security could be conceivably diminished, then this is not our fight. Keeping al-Qaeda in check does not require 200 billions per year but inteligence and diplomacy.

Posted by piotr | January 17, 2008 3:29 PM

I agree with the post 100%. Hamas is concerned about one very specific thing, which is that millions of Palestinians have gone stateless and homeless since 1948. Other Islamic groups have different concerns and therefore different grievances against Israel and/or the United States. While it may be in Israel's interest to conflate all these issues in order to secure a powerful ally in its conflicts, it may not necessarily serve ours. Why this logic evades Joe Lieberman is mysterious to me. Kudos to Matt for pointing this out.

Posted by scott | January 17, 2008 3:35 PM

yeah, what it comes down to is this: why is it in our interest to basically let Israel/our own fantasy Israel dictate our foreign policy in the Middle East?

Posted by metalpetic | January 17, 2008 3:40 PM

"Not to mention, Hezbollah is a Shi'ite organization. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. They're not exactly on the same side."-Posted by low-tech cyclist

There is not an uncompromising enmity between the two. In short, Shiites have virtually no religious qualms about ordinary Sunnis, and many Sunnis have no problem with Shiites. Some Sunnis believe Shiites are apostate. That tends to be the mindset of those who have joined up with Al Qaeda. You must remember though, that many joined Al Qaeda with primarily political rather than religious motivation.

Shiite Hezbollah has other Muslems, and even Christians in its ranks. They are believed to train members of Sunni Hamas. That being said, it is known that Hamas rigorously hunts down and kills Al Qaeda recruiters in its territory, despite both groups being Sunni.

Posted by Njorl | January 17, 2008 3:58 PM

"By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."
-- 9/11 Commission Report

Posted by croatoan | January 17, 2008 4:33 PM

America's Jews are too smart and fair-minded to fall for such horseshit. As though Ms. Clinton, Senator to the largest population of Jews outside Israel, had not bent over backwards to support that nation.

Posted by bob h | January 17, 2008 4:35 PM

As Matt admits, Democrats really aren't any different on this issue. I don't see any Democrats calling for engagement with Hamas & Hezbollah.

Posted by Peter H | January 17, 2008 4:36 PM

Lieberman is, unsurprisingly, factually incorrect.

We weren't really Israeli allies until after '67.

Eisenhower, after all, kicked them, the Brits and the French out of Sinai in 1956.

Israel's allies until the Six Day War were France, and, for the first decade or so, the Soviet Union. Let's not forget Israel was led by a secular, socialist party for the first 25 years of its existence.

This buddying up with Israel may be the right thing to do, but it's a lot more recent than anyone would like to think.

Posted by Greg | January 17, 2008 4:37 PM

I still want to know why those Americans who (for various reasons) want the US to defend Israel do not propose that we explicitly defend Israel: station half the army there, build permanent bases there, guard the borders there. With a large US military presence on her soil, Israel would be as safe from military attack as she could ever be. Her economy would probably benefit from hosting American bases. What's the downside?

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | January 17, 2008 4:56 PM

Actually, the agendas of the US and Israel are rather disparate. The economic support that the US currently provides to Israel also give us great leverage over the actions that nation may take in self defense. In particular, the Government of Israel has little choice relative to the Quassems which are fired over the Gaza fence every day, but to sit there and take it as the US will not continence the application of Hama Rules, which is the only action that will stop them. I can guarantee the Israel bashers on this blog that if such missiles were being fired across the Mexican border at US border towns, there would be no hesitation on the part of the US Government in applying whatever force was needed to stop them.

Posted by SLC | January 17, 2008 5:07 PM

I'm sure all the Jews for Buchanan voters in Florida have kindly thoughts about the Honest One.

Gore's selection of Lieberman as a running mate was a very stupid thing to do. It clouds my opinion of Al a lot. What the hell was he thinking? Of course I thought Clinton should have resigned and given the White House to Gore, and the win in 00.

Posted by rapier | January 17, 2008 5:10 PM

"We weren't really Israeli allies until after '67."

From Warren Harding to now, every American president has been explicitly Zionist except FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK, and I believe (but am not willing to hunt down proof), every American Congress has also been explicitly Zionist.

In 1922, the US Senate resolved unanimously, "The United States of America favours the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people".
(sorry, only link I can find.)

Then Harry Truman made America the first state to recognize Israel.

But as you say, FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK were exceptions.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 17, 2008 5:39 PM

A democracy does not have interests that contradict the opinions of its citizens.

Posted by David | January 17, 2008 6:06 PM

Truman did so over the objections of most of his cabinet, certainly over Marshall, while, IIRC, the Republicans were pretty lukewarm to the whole idea.

We may have been explicitly Zionist.

But this does not translate into material support. Israel relied on the French for modern weaponry, rather than our WW 2 era castoffs, until the Six Day War. They went to war in 1956 predominantly to support their French ally.

The air force that annihilated Egypt's air force twice, in 1956 and 1967, was composed almost entirely of Dassault planes. The paratroopers that staged daring coups in 1967 were carried in Nord Nordatlas craft. The armored divisions that thundered across the Sinai, the West Bank and Golan were composed mainly of AMX 13s and American Pattons and Shermans. Which the Israelis received from France.

Finally, and most importantly, it was France that supplied Israel with Dimona, guaranteeing beyond all else that Israel would never go under.

So we may have been moral supporters. But we didn't really ante up until the air lift in 1973. That's 25 years after Israel was founded.

Posted by Greg | January 17, 2008 6:16 PM

Okay, I'll give in. Between 1922 and 1967, America mainly supported Israel just for domestic purposes, to get votes from Jewish and Protestant Zionists. But then after the 1967 war, LBJ and Kissinger thought Israel's military was good enough to become the point of America's spear in the Middle East, or really, another spear, along with the Shah's Iran.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 17, 2008 6:48 PM

Florida has a closed primary so that any registered Democrats who may be receptive to Joe Lieberman (or John McCain) must have already changed their party affiliation to Republican in order to vote later this month.

Joe, of course, could be raising money for McCain, but it still seems like a rather pointless tactic (for Florida's Republican Primary.)

Posted by Hank Porter | January 17, 2008 6:56 PM

American-Israeli relations become closer after the Soviets gained a massive presence in Syria and Egypt in the 1960s.

By early 1967, Nasser was seen as a Soviet tool in Washington.Which is why LBJ gave the green light for operation Focus.

Posted by David | January 17, 2008 7:30 PM

Israel adheres to the Zionist ideology which, as spelled out by Theodor Herzl, calls for the 'Jewish State' to be a "rampart" of the West (Herzl said Europe) against Asia. You get what you pay for Joe, but why should the US play this game too? For what it's worth, I ask this as a Jewish-American who is sick and tired of land worship and the obsession with Jewish separatism.

Posted by The Other Alan | January 17, 2008 8:02 PM

The problem with your comments here. Matthew, are that they're eminently sensible, reasonable, and patriotic. Alas, Lieberman (whom in a moment of Molierian, anti-Semitic whimsy I once nicknamed *"Tarjuffe) believes that it's perfectly acceptable for a small number of racist, greedy, corrupt Zionist pigs to sacrifice precious young American lives and to piss away billions of dollars of hard-working American taxpayer dollars in ill-advised Wars of Agression...because, it's well, good for them. In Lieberman's mind- no price in American blood and treasure is too high to pay so long as "The Jewish State" can maintain a murderous, illegal, immoral, Apartheid State Occupation over their poor, impoverished "filthy shvatz goyim" neighbors in contra-defiance of the U.N. Charter and the Entire Civilized World (save Micronesia, and Israel Lobby bought and sold U.S. U.N. Security Council vetoes). Ah, the "straight-talking John McCain is in essence in partnership with a genuine, vile to the bone Traitor who happily sells out the American people with every cankererous, Connecticut breath he takes.

Posted by Trevor | January 17, 2008 9:12 PM

Well, I strongly suspect that this sort of public discussion will become considerably more "interesting" once certain important facts become much more widely known.

Which will happen...probably not too far down the road...

Posted by RKU | January 17, 2008 9:28 PM

I assume RKU is referring to the AIPAC trial.

Might be true if it goes deep enough, as Sibel Edmonds has said. OTOH, depending on how deep it goes, it might end up being more about how we have traitors in the US government than how much Israel has been working with those traitors.

Sibel Edmonds has evidence that this is one huge, frickin' operation that involves several nations - not just Israel and the US - and a number of organized crime groups, and numerous agencies in the US government, including especially the State Department.

Rooting out this much corruption may well prove to be beyond the capability of this country or any other country's law enforcement - especially when our DoJ is so heavily compromised by corrupt individuals and policies.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 17, 2008 10:56 PM

Re Trevor

Mr. Trevor has now surpassed Mr. Chris Ford and Mr. Richard Steven Hack as the worst antisemite on this blog, a consummation I had not believed possible. Mr. Trevor parrots ravings from stormfront, David Duke and rense, not to mention Mein Kampf, proving only that there is no difference between right wing fascist cocksuckers and left wing fascist cocksuckers.

Posted by SLC | January 18, 2008 8:24 AM

Regarding the connection between al-Qaeda, Israel, and 9/11: in his October 2004 tape, Osama bin Laden said he decided to attack the US towers while observing the 1983 Israeli bombing of towers in Beirut which symbolized the "injustice and inflexibility of the American/Israeli alliance towards his people in Palestine and Lebanon." Nothing has changed.

Posted by J.E. Dundee | January 18, 2008 10:53 AM

Couldn't we make some type of program so that every time there is an Israel thread, SLC, the transhuman, Trevor, Chris Ford and Don Williams can go into their own thread and blow each other while other people can talk in the normal thread?

We may have given support to the idea of Zionism, but there is a big difference between supporting the idea of a Jewish state and supporting Zionism as practiced in Israel (for instance, it probably would have made more sense to deport Nazi supporters in Germany and Austria from the most pro-Nazi parts of the country and let Jewish immigrants and returnees to settle in than deport millions of innocent Palestinians).

But really, Joementum has become a textbook case of the old Jewish man of his generation who had a passing interest in Israel for years and once he becomes an old fart suddenly believes Israel is at the heart of Judaism and Jewish identity, that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic and that all Israeli actions are justified whether or not they make sense.

Posted by Reality Man | January 18, 2008 11:00 AM