A Case For Non-Interventionism
In light of Israel's recent "offensive" against Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinians, and anyone else they don't like, and in light of the above-mentioned organizations' endless war against Israel, I'd like to touch on two questions that keep popping up in my mind:
a. If a group of people move into your neighborhood and carve out a part your land, refuse to leave, and are so well-armed that you can't remove them, would you be angry?
b. If the offending group was continually funded and supported by an even richer and stronger group from across the state, would you be really angry?
These are questions I often think about because, as a Floridian, I've watched my beloved home state be raped and regulated by endless streams of damnyankees (yes, it's one word) over the course of my life. But at least there are Constitutional limits on what the damnyankees can do, and some of them even come to realize that turning Florida into Brooklyn-South really isn't the best course of action. Compared to the Israelis, the damnyankees are pikers.
Unfortunately, it seems to go against the grain of American thought to consider history when attempting to understand the present. So when you hear someone in the government or on talk radio defending Israel, keep a few historical facts in mind.
1. Before 1948, there was no Israel. Moreover, there hadn't been an Israel since well before the common era commenced.
2. Since a huge amount of time had elapsed between the end of the kingdoms of Israel and Juda and the birth of the modern state, a lot of non-Jewish people had moved into the lands of the former kingdoms, and they'd been there for a really long time.
3. Up until the Zionist movement started actively trying to export, smuggle and sneak Jews into British Palestine in the 20's, 30's & 40's, the Jewish population of Palestine was rather small (Don't believe me? Get yourself a copy of Golda Meir's My Life (1975)). In other words, there was a deliberate policy on the part of the Zionists to move as many Jews as possible to Palestine in order to outnumber the resident Palestinians and legitimize claims to a Jewish state.
4. The United States government, mostly due to political pressures at home, has always treated Israel as though it were the 51st state, which has certainly contributed to Arab resentment and hostility toward the US.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way saying that the situation in the Middle East is a simple black-and-white scenario, or that Israel is always wrong and the Arabs are always right. Unfortunately, the Arab world these days means the Islamic world, and Islam, coming from the same pot as Christianity, is a highly irrational, inherently violent religion. Any religion that claims to have all the answers plus a holy stamp of approval to evangelize is inherently violent. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is, and if that offends your Christian sensibilities I invite you to study the long and violent history of Christianity. But getting back to the point, It is understandable why the Arab world hates us, and it is understandable why our support of Israel has contributed to that hatred. I'm not saying that blowing up buildings and committing endless acts of terrorism are justifiable, but given the current situation I do understand where these fanatics are coming from. In other words, if the US hadn't been meddling in Middle Eastern politics for the past 60+ years, I suspect that while they may still find us morally offensive to their Islamic sensibilities, I doubt they'd be giving their lives to blow us up. Call it a hunch.
But my real point here is that I fail to see how the United States benefits from getting involved in these sorts of conflicts. In fact, I found myself re-reading Washington's Farewell Address to Congress in 1796, and I was particularly taken in by the following statement:
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."
If you take the time to read this in context, the argument he makes is that we, as the United States, must consider the preservation of our own liberties above the best interests of other nations. Hence, while there may be a reason to construct temporary alliances with other nations, as a general rule we should avoid long-term, entangling alliances that serve the interest of others better than our own.
The modern extension of this mindset is known as "non-interventionism". Not practical in this day and age, I hear you ask? Just for giggles, take a look at this 2001 article from Charles Peña. While it's often easy to play Monday morning quarterback, it's also fun (at least for me) to see how thoughtful people can often predict the future of government policy based upon history. What's sad is that the overwhelming majority of policymakers fail to learn this skill, or assume that this time things will be different.
Just in case you're wondering who I'm pulling for to "win" in the seemingly endless Israeli-Arab conflict, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I really don't care. I don't see any significant moral superiority between a Jewish-Socialist state and a collection of Islamofascist states. Their values and systems are anathema to the American Constitution and system of government. I am convinced, however, that the only way for the US to "win" in the Middle East is to disengage itself politically and financially from the region.
As Thomas Jefferson, my all-time favorite democrat (who would be doing 8000 rpm in his grave if he could see what the modern Democratic Party has become) said in his first inaugural address:
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..."
It may not result in world peace (as if anything would do that), but it sure as hell would keep more dollars in American citizens' pockets, and it would keep American soldiers at home.
a. If a group of people move into your neighborhood and carve out a part your land, refuse to leave, and are so well-armed that you can't remove them, would you be angry?
b. If the offending group was continually funded and supported by an even richer and stronger group from across the state, would you be really angry?
These are questions I often think about because, as a Floridian, I've watched my beloved home state be raped and regulated by endless streams of damnyankees (yes, it's one word) over the course of my life. But at least there are Constitutional limits on what the damnyankees can do, and some of them even come to realize that turning Florida into Brooklyn-South really isn't the best course of action. Compared to the Israelis, the damnyankees are pikers.
Unfortunately, it seems to go against the grain of American thought to consider history when attempting to understand the present. So when you hear someone in the government or on talk radio defending Israel, keep a few historical facts in mind.
1. Before 1948, there was no Israel. Moreover, there hadn't been an Israel since well before the common era commenced.
2. Since a huge amount of time had elapsed between the end of the kingdoms of Israel and Juda and the birth of the modern state, a lot of non-Jewish people had moved into the lands of the former kingdoms, and they'd been there for a really long time.
3. Up until the Zionist movement started actively trying to export, smuggle and sneak Jews into British Palestine in the 20's, 30's & 40's, the Jewish population of Palestine was rather small (Don't believe me? Get yourself a copy of Golda Meir's My Life (1975)). In other words, there was a deliberate policy on the part of the Zionists to move as many Jews as possible to Palestine in order to outnumber the resident Palestinians and legitimize claims to a Jewish state.
4. The United States government, mostly due to political pressures at home, has always treated Israel as though it were the 51st state, which has certainly contributed to Arab resentment and hostility toward the US.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way saying that the situation in the Middle East is a simple black-and-white scenario, or that Israel is always wrong and the Arabs are always right. Unfortunately, the Arab world these days means the Islamic world, and Islam, coming from the same pot as Christianity, is a highly irrational, inherently violent religion. Any religion that claims to have all the answers plus a holy stamp of approval to evangelize is inherently violent. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is, and if that offends your Christian sensibilities I invite you to study the long and violent history of Christianity. But getting back to the point, It is understandable why the Arab world hates us, and it is understandable why our support of Israel has contributed to that hatred. I'm not saying that blowing up buildings and committing endless acts of terrorism are justifiable, but given the current situation I do understand where these fanatics are coming from. In other words, if the US hadn't been meddling in Middle Eastern politics for the past 60+ years, I suspect that while they may still find us morally offensive to their Islamic sensibilities, I doubt they'd be giving their lives to blow us up. Call it a hunch.
But my real point here is that I fail to see how the United States benefits from getting involved in these sorts of conflicts. In fact, I found myself re-reading Washington's Farewell Address to Congress in 1796, and I was particularly taken in by the following statement:
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."
If you take the time to read this in context, the argument he makes is that we, as the United States, must consider the preservation of our own liberties above the best interests of other nations. Hence, while there may be a reason to construct temporary alliances with other nations, as a general rule we should avoid long-term, entangling alliances that serve the interest of others better than our own.
The modern extension of this mindset is known as "non-interventionism". Not practical in this day and age, I hear you ask? Just for giggles, take a look at this 2001 article from Charles Peña. While it's often easy to play Monday morning quarterback, it's also fun (at least for me) to see how thoughtful people can often predict the future of government policy based upon history. What's sad is that the overwhelming majority of policymakers fail to learn this skill, or assume that this time things will be different.
Just in case you're wondering who I'm pulling for to "win" in the seemingly endless Israeli-Arab conflict, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I really don't care. I don't see any significant moral superiority between a Jewish-Socialist state and a collection of Islamofascist states. Their values and systems are anathema to the American Constitution and system of government. I am convinced, however, that the only way for the US to "win" in the Middle East is to disengage itself politically and financially from the region.
As Thomas Jefferson, my all-time favorite democrat (who would be doing 8000 rpm in his grave if he could see what the modern Democratic Party has become) said in his first inaugural address:
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..."
It may not result in world peace (as if anything would do that), but it sure as hell would keep more dollars in American citizens' pockets, and it would keep American soldiers at home.
posted by DrJDG @ 15:20
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home