Wars and Rumors of Wars
By Gene Lalor, Ph.D
Posted On August 13, 2006

If I were an Israeli, I’d support Israel’s current incursion into Gaza and Lebanon, and Syria if need be. If I were an Israeli, I’d have more than a few qualms about how my government was conducting the war, especially the lack of regard for civilian casualties, whether collateral or not, but I still would support the war. I would also take issue with the outrageously disproportionate number of Arab and Lebanese civilians killed and wounded versus Israeli civilian losses, and with the televised statement by at one Israeli that my country is entitled to kill ten of the enemy for every Israeli killed. All that said, from the point of view of an Israeli, my paramount concern would be the survival of my country in a region where it is despised and where we have been attacked repeatedly since our founding, with the intent not just of defeating us but of eradicating us as a nation and pushing us into the Mediterranean.

But, I’m not an Israeli. I’m an American. I’m an American who agrees deeply that Israel has the right to exist. What I don’t agree with is the United States risking our own existence for that of any foreign nation, including Israel. Hyperbolic? Perhaps, but our world today and America’s place in it is in a precarious state unlike any other period in history. We too are detested, albeit for different reasons, by far more people who hate Israel.

We’ve heretofore had our oceans to protect us and generally benign neighbors to our north and south. That all changed September 11th, 2001. We do still have the same neighbors, but they’re not what they once were. Mexico has, in effect, been invading our land for some years now with millions of its citizens, most “undocumented,” meaning illegal. Canada has become a socialistic, terrorist refuge and has demonstrated repeatedly that it’s far from the loyal friend and ally we once had.

Recent events in England should remind us, if reminding is necessary, that another catastrophic attack, or attacks, could be just hours or minutes away. (Newsday, on the day after the plot was foiled, published a twelve-page supplement, headlined, “They’re Still Out There!” That’s news? I’d love to ask the editors there, “Where did you think THEY went?”) We learned after 9/11 that al Qaeda is and could be both very deadly and very patient, (Muhammed Atta waited years until the signal was given), so it matters little whether it happens sooner or later, but the inevitability is a given. Unfortunately, Americans invariably are reactive rather than pro-active and seem to prefer to wait rather than to initiate hostilities – Bush’s preemptive strike against Iraq notwithstanding.

“Fortress America” was long ago discredited as jingoistic xenophobia, just an aberration of Joe Kennedy’s seventy years ago. But, the future patriarch of the Kennedy clan had a valid point: Be strong as a nation, be powerful, be a fortress, keep ourselves out of Europe’s 1984 style perpetual wars and the United States will be just fine. Fortress America was simply an extension of President George Washington’s injunction to beware foreign entanglements. We haven’t heeded that warning in the past hundred years or so, to our detriment.

Today, as trite as it sounds, we live not just in a precarious world. We also live in a very different world. Hitler and Tojo were easy and conventional foes compared to what we face today: an implacable enemy with no capital city to obliterate, no uniformed combatants to shoot, no government to overthrow, and no single leader with whom to negotiate a truce or cease fire. Much like Israel faces today, with some significant variations. I was reminded of all this by Steven Spielberg’s 2005 film, Munich. Not one of those films you can say you "enjoy," Munich is still an excellent “based on real events” account of the 1972 Olympics’ massacre of Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists.

What struck me as I watched the film is that despite all the bloodshed of the past six decades, on both sides, nothing has really changed over there. In fact, have things changed appreciably in the region in thousands of years? In recent weeks, they have changed, but for the worse. What reasonable person could believe it will ever change for the better? Yet we dream on and plod on, ignoring but not oblivious of the reality that the Middle East is the Mother of all Quagmires, of a bottomless, endless, hopeless mess. Nor can we change thousands of years of enmity. Swords may be beaten into plowshares, but how do we convert improvised explosive devices, rocket propelled grenades, M-16's and AK-47's, tanks, and F-16s into plowshares? It just isn’t going to happen.

Dreams can be wonderful things. They can also be nightmares.

Spielberg took some flak for depicting the terrorists in Munich as real people, replete with souls, emotions, families – and a valid cause: These were Palestinians fighting for their homeland and demanding that the world listen. They were employing the only recourse they had – terrorism. The Jews had used similar, bloody terrorist tactics to effectuate the establishment of Israel as a nation. Menachim Begin, a proud terrorist/insurgent for Israel -- who later became the Israeli prime minister and then downplayed that truth, was intimately involved with the destruction of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946. That bombing, launched from the Bet Arahon Talmud Torah in that city, just as today’s Islamic radicals use mosques, resulted in the deaths of ninety-one people, including fifteen Jews.

The last shot of the film, however, was puzzling and made me really take notice. The anguished Israeli lead-executioner of the executioner-terrorists is in New York City and the camera pans the skyline, ending with a view of the World Trade Center. Those proud, majestic towers, symbols of American success and wealth and strength, were destroyed in 2001 and the site is still a massive hole in the ground after five years. But what is their relevance to Munich?

Now, I’m aware that, despite significant differences – the variations mentioned above - in many ways both Israel and the United States are fighting the same enemy: Islamo-fascism. Still thirsting for vengeance for the Crusades centuries ago (the first Crusade was in 1096, the last in 1291) many Muslims are presumptuously and arrogantly convinced they could recover the pre-eminent position they once held in the world. But, to accomplish that vain goal, radical Muslims know that bringing devastation to Israel and the West is but one small step, a tactic not a strategy. Their ultimate enemy, and target, is the United States.

Absent the U.S. as a world power, Israel would soon be reduced to a molten, glowing desert puddle and Western Europe, despite its usual bluster and after attempting to appease the Muslims, would soon collapse. If the United States were crippled, we couldn’t save them again. So, first and foremost, radical Muslims are dedicated to our elimination which they believe will clear the path for Muslim hegemony over the planet. Israel is but an annoying, ancient blip on their radar, a minor obstacle in their big picture of things and Old Europe, with its rapidly-growing Muslim populations, is all but finished, anyway.

But, again, why does Spielberg show the World Trade Towers at the end of a film about a strictly Israel matter? (The Olympic horror of 1972 was no more related to the United States than was the King David Hotel bombing. In fact, the United States enjoyed a functional peace with the Muslim people in 1972.) Spielberg seems to be suggesting that Palestinians were involved in the 9/11 attack twenty-nine years later, which they weren’t. He also seems to be suggesting that the United States and Israel are somehow inextricably linked and that what happens to Israelis happens to us -- which isn’t true either, and need not be.

That’s what’s most bothersome: We seem to have tied our future and fate to this tiny nation, Israel, with about the same population as Ireland -- but why? I guess I’m in the minority since even those pillars of conservatism Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are committed, body and soul, to Israel. Maybe I’m missing something here but I just can’t understand why, since that commitment has drawn us into that roiling cesspool of hatred and violence that is the Middle East. Is this commitment a result of American Christian guilt that FDR largely ignored the Holocaust and turned back a boatload of desperate Jewish refugees and now we must pay recompense?

It bears repeating that we were at peace in 1972. Many are now speculating that we’re in the early stages of World War III. I hope not. Then again, in 1914, did the world realize that the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand meant the planet had begun the first global war? Or did Neville Chamberlain realize that “Peace at any price” would lead us to the sixty million dead in the conflagration that was the second such war? I doubt either is true but the more relevant point is, Why are we in this mess? Because of the new mantra that we must defend Israeli at any price? If so, I suggest that price is far too steep!

Israel isn’t Poland and I’m not talking appeasement here, I’m talking realism. The fall of Israel would not result in a Nazi-like Muslim juggernaut roaring across the Mid East. They already own most of the Mid East.

I admire Israel’s determination to defeat Hezbollah at all costs and despite world condemnation, something the United States simply refuses to do with regard to terrorism. If we were truly dedicated to destroying the Muslim threat, we would act as the Israelis did in rescuing its hostages at Uganda’s Entebbe Airport, (1976), a brazen effort that resulted in fifty-four dead, or as Israel did after the slaughter at Munich -- when it tracked down, bombed and shot most of those involved in the Munich atrocity. (The Ugandan despot, the cannibal Idi Amin, protested vehemently afterward but even the United Nations Security Council refused to pursue the matter. The world knew very well who was executing the Munich terrorists worldwide, but chose to ignore it.) The United States, however, chained by the shackles of being the world’s only superpower, so overly concerned with world opinion, are just that – shackled – by our own lack of resolve. Despite the far greater atrocity of 9/11, despite the rhetoric, we have chosen “moderation in the pursuit of justice.” That full quotation, from Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign in 1964, reads, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

II

Despite the carnage in Iraq, the United States has actually pursued the moderate high road by not obliterating those terror states responsible for 9/11. We also haven’t issued fair warning to those who would attack us in the future that they will not simply be considered the opposition, but would be reduced to rubble. (Extreme? Yes, it is. Effective? Definitely.) The world would collectively gasp at our retribution. But perhaps a few years later it would marvel at the collective peace our actions brought about. To paraphrase Goldwater, extremism in the defense of our nation is no vice, and moderation in the conduct of any war is no virtue. It would just mean defeat.

What’s most odd about what we do and don’t do in the face of the greatest threat ever to confront the United States is that we neither emulate the tactics and strategy of Israel nor do we adopt a policy that would alleviate the threat: Abandon Israel. The former approach would evoke world demonstrations and outrage, which would soon dissipate, and the latter would evoke demonstrations and shrieks that we would abandon an ally (which we’ve done before, with Taiwan.)

Letting Israel and its enemies just fight it out sans our aid to either side would also demonstrate that we had no favorites, no dog in that Middle East fight. The result would be a stalemate in the Muslim-Christian war we have today. After an heroic and epic struggle, and despite its overwhelming military and materiel, Israel would eventually lose to the massive Muslim hordes, Palestinians would get their Palestine, and radical Muslims would be sated, if only temporarily. Opting for national survival over approbation and popularity, Israel would deploy and use tactical nukes, which would just inflame and energize Muslims from Africa to Indonesia. The Muslim hordes, by sheer force of numbers, backed by a nuclear Pakistan and Iran, would decimate the Israeli military and overrun Israeli territory just as the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan and his descendants overwhelmed the Holy Land and Eastern Europe in the thirteenth century. I’m not suggesting this would be a pretty picture.

War is never pretty and tends to destroy things and people. But, from our viewpoint, it would afford us time, some breathing room to re-group and prepare, planning time to use to insure the survival of the United States.

Of course, neither of those two scenarios will ever come to be. Israel simply wouldn’t permit it. The Arab world seems to believe that Israel is our client-state in the region, doing the bidding of the United States. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Why else would we annually pour billions of dollars in aid to Israel – some 17% of our foreign aid budget, easily the biggest slice of that aid pie? Why else would we antagonize more than a billion Muslims worldwide to win the favor of five million Israelis? Why else were we not, and why aren’t we still, incensed over the 1967 deliberate, murderous Israeli attack on our surveillance vessel, the U.S. Liberty? Why else did capturing the Jewish spy for Israel, Jonathan Pollard, not make us aware that Israel is no ally of ours? Who in reality is the client and which tailing is wagging which dog?

Our Jewish brethren make up (2001 figures) 1.4% of our population. (Seventy-seven percent are Christian.) They also constitute 11% of the U.S. Senate, 6% of the House, 22% of the Supreme Court and doubtlessly are proud that they in large part dominate the media, local governments and judiciaries in many states. Now, I don’t contend that those proportions necessarily mean that Jews are not true and loyal Americans, but they are conflicted loyal Americans. I’ve done extensive research (albeit informal) and admittedly this is all anecdotal, but in my many conversations with Jewish-Americans, one question seems to provoke them to near-apoplexy. Most will say they love and support the United States – until the question posed is: “In a hypothetical American-Israeli war, which side would you support?” The responses are almost always variations on, “Preposterous scenario…Stupid question!...Nazi!...Anti-Semite!...Jew hater!” And even some obscenities. Few will answer this query and I agree that such a war would never happen, but it is just a hypothetical question! Why the apoplexy?

Now, I’m fully cognizant that most if not all of the above will convince some readers that I am anti-Semitic. I’m not. What I believe is that we are blessed with a far-from-perfect country, but a great country. I’m proudly, unalterably, unwaveringly, unabashedly pro-American. I simply feel that Americans should have the same love, dedication, and loyalty to our well-being and future as a nation as Israelis have toward Israel, as Arabs have toward their homelands, as any citizen of any country should have toward their respective nations. I feel that all Americans should care for the United States more than they care for any other. If that’s a radical idea, so be it. I also firmly believe that many Americans no longer share my sentiments.

There’s a division in the United States, fueled by those who are at best ambivalent toward us, at worst exacerbated by those who are citizens but who actually despise who we are, what we believe, and what we stand for. Abraham Lincoln put it in a nice nutshell: “A nation divided against itself cannot stand.” Our divisions are becoming irreparable and the dangers we face are very real and very grave. If I were an Israeli, I’d love Israel. Americans should love America. End of story.

ABC's Primetime aired a special the night of August 10th, after the British announced the arrest of British Muslims in the aborted plot that would have rivaled 9/11. Primetime asked the question: “Target America: Was the Big One Foiled?” Whether rhetorical or not, the realistic response seems to be that that "big one" was foiled. There will most assuredly be more.

A final reality check is in order: The United States is at a major crossroads, a threshold that will determine our future. In November 2006 and then again in 2008, American voters, perhaps convinced by the media that President Bush is a dolt, that the economy is awful, that Iraq is beyond hope, and that we should shift gears – in the midst of a war - may pass the torch once again to the Democratic Party. Noted alumni such as FDR, HST, and JFK would today shun that party, this once great institution, not just because it is out of the mainstream of American thought but because it’s now being led by shameless opportunists who put politics over patriotism, personal ambition over morality, political vengeance over loyalty. Some would call them seditionists. Roosevelt imprisoned those, citizens or not, who criticized us during wartime; Truman bravely dropped atomic bombs to conclude a long, costly war that would have claimed millions more had he wavered; JFK said we should ask what we should do for our country, not the reverse. The new Democratic Party--the party of such luminaries as Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Charley Rangel, Howard Dean, the party of Michael Moore -- makes me wonder what side it’s on and if it had any concept of the consequences of not winning today’s Muslim-Christian struggle. If they control our future, based on their recent track record, we can anticipate that their policies of cut and run, defeatism, negativism, and abnegation of our ideals to be chiseled into our tombstone.

Gene Lalor is a retired teacher living on Long Island.

E-mail this article to a friend.