The Question

Glenn Greenwald once again puts The Question into succinct form:

There may (or may not) be an argument to make that we should view terrorist attacks on Israel as attacks on the U.S. There may (or may not) be an argument to make that because Israel is an ally of ours, we should be willing to wage war against countries which sponsor terrorist attacks on them, or that our commitment to "spreading democracy" requires us to come to their defense. Maybe there is an argument to make that our interests are so inextricably linked that we cannot distinguish between terrorist groups directed at Israel and those directed at the U.S. But if those are valid arguments, they should be made explicitly and clearly, without the type of misleading obfuscation which this Strategy report, along with administration statements on this subject, clearly intend to create. (emphasis added)

We are a nation of 300 million. There are approximately 300 million Arabs surrounding Israel in the middle East. On the other hand, Israel has only six million residents (some are Arab). A larger war in the midEast will most likely result in millions of deaths from both sides.

Given these numbers, is it in our best interests to continue to give unqualified support to Israel? Even it Israel wages war on Syria and Iran? Even if Israel uses nuclear weapons?

It is my belief that this Question is no longer hypothetical. It is at ground zero. We had best think it through before we start firing off the missiles. Oh, by the way, Europe, Russia and China, in addition to India and Pakistan would like to have a say in this.

Israel is a foreign country. We behave as if we are connected to Israel at the hip. An attack on Israel is not an attack on our country. As for any moral responsibility to defend Israel, it is my belief that the behavior of Israel towards its neighbors and the people it forcibly expelled from Palestine substantially reduces our responsibility to come to Israel's support. Already, we give them many billions of dollars (of my tax money) when our own poor languish in New Orleans. Many of the decisions in this area are made not because of strategic concerns for the health of the United States (how could a nuclear war in the midEast help us?) but because of a political agenda at home. (We do not need to revisit the question of the Israel lobby at this time.)

In a way, we should welcome this new report. In spite of the fact that it answers few questions, it does bring forward The Question. I have no optimism that it will be addressed.