What it has done is made enemies that the U.S. would not otherwise have had.
The Truman State Department warned in the late 1940s that the U.S. would squander this good will via President Truman’s bias toward Israel (which Truman told Clark Clifford was dictated largely by domestic political considerations). The U.S., they said, would share the blame for whatever Israel did (and indeed Truman was evidently appalled at how Israel handled the refugee situation).
You will not run across anyone in official conservatism telling you this. Their salaries depend on not telling you.
From the Tom Woods Letter:
I lost some subscribers yesterday, which I expected. But I’m still here and all is well.
One person accused me of a “double standard” because all lobbying groups pursue their interests. So why was I singling out AIPAC?
How about because AIPAC smeared the most principled and courageous U.S. congressman we have? Is that answer sufficient for the police?
I wouldn’t say there’s exactly been a shortage of criticisms of other lobbying groups — the military-industrial complex gets its share of attention, I’d say — in my writing.
Again, imagine creating an organization aimed entirely at enriching a foreign country at the expense of the one in which you live, and then throwing career-destroying smears around at people who decline to comply. You cannot imagine that, thank goodness, because you’re not motivated by narcissistic self-preoccupation.
I have heard and I understand the reasons people have for supporting the Israeli regime.
My points are these:
(1) It is not reasonable to describe the Israeli government as our “greatest ally.” If you thought silly platitudes that are supposed to become true through repetition were confined to the left, think again. This particular one is a favorite of Conservatism, Inc. The “special relationship” with Israel confers no benefit on the U.S. How could it? What can a country of 9 million, half a world a way, do for us?
What it has done is made enemies that the U.S. would not otherwise have had.
Yes, I have heard the arguments: the Muslim world would have hated us no matter what we did, etc. I don’t buy it. At the time of the King-Crane Commission, the United States had an excellent reputation in the Middle East. When asked what country they’d like to govern them as League of Nations mandates, Middle Easterners overwhelmingly said the United States. That’s so inconceivable today that I wouldn’t blame you for not believing me.
The Truman State Department warned in the late 1940s that the U.S. would squander this good will via President Truman’s bias toward Israel (which Truman told Clark Clifford was dictated largely by domestic political considerations). The U.S., they said, would share the blame for whatever Israel did (and indeed Truman was evidently appalled at how Israel handled the refugee situation).
You will not run across anyone in official conservatism telling you this. Their salaries depend on not telling you.
(2) Christians may have their own secular reasons for wishing to lend support to the Israeli government, but they are under no theological obligation to do so.
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 