Schumer, Israel, etc.

A great post from Steve Clemons on Friday. While giving general praise to the position that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is currently articulating, Clemons also writes this:

    Every time I get an email from Senator Schumer, I am reminded of his support of John Bolton’s confirmation in the 2nd push the administration made on Bolton during the Israel-Lebanon conflagration. Several — yes more than three — U.S. Senators told me personally that Schumer was telling them “a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel.”

    It is that kind of false choice thinking that undermines American prestige and moral credibility. So yes, Republicans are vulnerable on this war — but the kind of giddy notes that Schumer is sending out neglect his own role in empowering this crowd.

Clemons’ own comment on this tidbit focuses on what he calls the “historical amnesia” currently being displayed by Schumer (and other leading Democrats.) But he makes no comment on the assumption embedded in the argument attributed to Schumer that the (claimed) interests of a foreign country, Israel, should outweigh any other concerns his fellow senators might have had about Bolton.
We could also, certainly, go back and look at the role that the claimed interests of that same foreign country played back in 2002 in persuading so many senators and House members to allow the administration to proceed full-bore with its plan to invade Iraq… or the role that those same interests play today in the argumentation of those urging an attack against Iran.
Why do so many US senators and representatives still seem simply to assume that placing Israel’s (claimed, but perhaps not actual) interests so high in their priority list is the wise thing for our country– and them– to do? Especially now that we can palpably see that the Iraq war and the appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador, to mention just two notable recent results of that thinking, led to such chains of disasters for the interests of the US citizenry…
Maybe it’s time for these US pols to engage in a much deeper discussion with people representing all strands of Israeli thinking, including the country’s many thoughtful advocates of peace and coexistence– rather than taking into account only the shrill warnings of the most extreme of the Israeli militarists, which is what seems to have happened until now.

5 thoughts on “Schumer, Israel, etc.”

  1. I expect those that have a personal relationship with a cause,religion or country will act in a manner which benefits their cause. Their opinions and acts are done in the best concience. It matters not that faulty logic and beliefs had a hand in the making of those opinions. One can not have 1 set of rules for their own and another for the rest of the world. Israel’s government believes that any means is availiable to protect themselves. Unfortunately , the violence course just rolls back on the purveyor. Of course Israel has a reason to be paranoid but to create new enemies day by day is illogical. I am sure that the Israeli people run the spectrum of political thought. As a combat Vietnam veteran I witnessed first hand the effects of prolonged violence. People became less tolerant and more rigid in rtheir beliefs. People die and set off emotions in those close to them. The conditions create the ensuing actions. Its a tough row to hoe but peace will not be found by war. Security will not be found. Only with compromise by Israel can things change. As long as the Israeli govt holds the palestinians hostage then they will have no peace or security. Its time for the world to guarantee Israel’s security and also time to give the Palestinians their just due/freedom and land and the right to govern themselves. The same goal which all people strive for. Israeli’s policy is not good for the Palestinians or the Israeli’s. Neither is secure and safe.Things take time.Marty Young vietnam vet

  2. Finally we see this subject being discussed. For too long, the welfare of Israel – putting this country on the same level of protection as the United States – has been the elephant in the room. This “Israel First” attitude, which explains so many of the neocon’s, and others like Joe Leiberman’s, positions on Iraq and the middle east, is at least as important as oil in explaining bushcheneyrove’s unbending goal of a U.S. permanent presence in the middle east. Just consider the size of the bases being built in Iraq. These bases, in bush’s and the neo’s minds, will guarantee these two goals being met: The protection of Israel; access to middle eastern oil.
    When you read or listen to a pro-war position being given, check out who is giving it. Why else would someone like Leiberman, a lifelong democrat, be so pro-Iraq war, and so unflinching in his support for this fiasco, even though his positions throughout his career have been so far to the left on everything else?
    I admire Israel very much, but as a veteran and citizen, I will always put my country, the United States, above any other country – and that includes Israel.

  3. The Israel lobby in its incredible arrogance seems to think it is immune from the old adage IF YOU GIVE THEM ENOUGH ROPE THEY WILL HANG THEMSELVES.
    This will prove their undoing IMHO and much sooner than most think.

Comments are closed.