Advice for President Obama

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The Progressive Democrats have their share of voters, but they will never have enough votes to win. Whenever they don't come across as weak and politically-correct, they come across as self-righteous and totalitarian. And frankly, they love the idea of a World Government more than they love their own country.

The Conservative Republicans have their share of voters, but they will never have enough votes to win. Whenever they're not whiny and obnoxious, they come across as hypocritical and totalitarian. And frankly, they are more concerned with the security of Israel than they are of their own country.

Jew-spotting

So Michael Scheuer has a debate with Alan Dershowitz about Israel. Scheuer names some prominent neocons: Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle. Dershowitz's response? "Listen to the ethnic names Scheuer is using! He is a bigot, a bigot."

Scheuer writes, "As the name-caller from Harvard Yard railed on, I said that the names James Woolsey, Victor Davis Hanson, Andrew McCarthy, and the two evangelical preachers mentioned above could be added to the list but I suspect the words were drowned out by my opponent’s contemptible but effective theatrics."

Of course, Scheuer probably knew all three men's biographies well and knew they were Jewish, but it was clear he never gave it a thought and had no anti-Semitic intent.

Someone help me. Most of my grade school years were spent in Canada. Do American schools teach kids how to spot a Jewish name?

If there was a "spot the Jew" quiz with the above list of names, I would have picked Wolfowitz. I already knew that Perle is Jewish, but couldn't tell by the name. I had no idea that Feith is Jewish.

If the last name has an in "itz" or a "stein," I might guess Jewish. I know of celebrities named Goldberg, Goldwater, and Silverstone who are ethnic Jews. I know someone named Silverberg who isn't. I have no clue how to spot a Jew.

Not that it makes any difference to me what someone's name or ethnicity is. But the fact that Dershowitz resorts to the anti-Semitism card is just further evidence of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of those who believe the Israeli government is entitled to American taxpayer dollars.

What I resent is people like Dershowitz insinuating that those who support an America First foreign policy, as opposed to Israel First, are anti-Semitic. I wonder why blood spilled in Israel or Palestine is supposed to matter to me as an American more than blood spilled at 10-100 times the rate in Sudan or Congo.

Frankly, it doesn't. The U.S. should stop subsidizing Israel's failed social democracy by ending its aid and declaring neutrality in the region, and should cut off aid to all other foreign governments as well.

We shouldn't tell Israel what to do. We shouldn't coerce it, or encourage it to engage in proxy wars on our behalf. And we shouldn't fund her military, and shouldn't be blamed for Israel's errors.

Providing aid to Israel makes America and Americans less safe. And any citizen who's primary concern is another nation's interests is, by definition, not a patriot.

It's About Power

Israel's strikes against Hamas in Gaza has undoubtedly stirred up the emotions of everyone sympathetic to one side or the other. And it provokes questions: what should the U.S. response be? What should President-elect Obama say?

But these are the wrong questions, because they're made under the false assumption that the U.S. government has anything like the "national interest" in mind. Or that government in the United States of "of the people" and "for the people."

I could point to two instances that disprove the assumption:

1. Hemp prohibition. From paper to fuel, hemp products would open new industries while lowering the price of goods and services. All government prohibitions are wrong, but most at least have a reasonable-sounding justification, such as "protecting the children." But there is no justification for hemp prohibition, no reason that remotely makes sense. So one can only conclude that its only purpose is to protect some industries from competition. And if the government is this contemptuous of the public good on this issue, how can we reasonably assume it acts with "good intentions" on any other issue? If they outlaw industrial hemp for corrupt reasons, then it is almost certain that they outlaw other things, such as addictive drugs, for equally corrupt reasons and not for the reasonable-sounding reasons they state.
2. Corporate income taxes. The system is completely superfluous. In a country where there are personal income taxes, then corporate profits will go, one way to another, to stockholders. They can report this income themselves. This means the time and expense corporations must spend complying with the tax code are nothing but a drag on the economy, and they pass on these costs to the consumer in the form of higher prices. But this does not matter to the government. The corporate tax structure is the means by which they can control not just for-profit entities, but non-profits as well. If no organization had a "tax status" because organization were never taxed, then the government couldn't give out favors in the form of tax breaks. And, lo and behold, any organization would be able to speak or write freely without jeopardizing its tax status. Corporate income taxes are not about government revenue or the public good, they are just a means by which government can control much of civil society.

In light of this, what are we to say about U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine? If our government took our country's security concerns seriously, it would pledge neutrality over the conflict in that speck on the globe, which is no larger or more populous than New Jersey. And it would cease open and covert aid to both sides. Palestinian civilians wouldn't get killed by weapons paid for by the U.S.

But this isn't how the U.S. government works or thinks. For our politicians and bureaucrats are driven by power and influence, not the good of the American people. Aid to Israel is about controlling Israel to some degree. Aid to international agencies and to other countries is for the same purpose. The motive is not compassion or solidarity with foreign peoples, but rather to control them and their affairs.

Were it not for the fact that the U.S. is paying for Israel's battles, this conflict wouldn't concern us. Whenever violence erupts, I neither defend nor criticize Israel. I just wonder how things would play out if it wasn't for American financing and meddling.

Because it is driven by the acquistion of more and more power, the U.S. government simply does not act in the interests of the American people. How then, can we expect it to do the right thing in the Middle East? And why would we think Obama will be any better?

Who Cares About Israel?

The other day I heard a caller on a public radio show rant against Arabs, how racist and dangerous Arabs are, that any clear-thinking people would love to have Jews in their country, how Jewish settlers in Gaza helped the economy tremendously before they were pulled out, and how too many Americans are too trusting of Arabs and don't see these issues clearly.

But why should I, as an American, give a damn one way or another? Yes, there is that $3 billion in foreign aid given to Israel every year, which allows Israel's enemies to blame America for Israel's actions. This in turn creates diplomatic headaches and the threat of terrorist attacks that probably cost Americans closer to $300 billion/year in Defense, Homeland Security, and opportunity costs. And this leaves out the possibility that America made war on Iraq and is threatening war with Iran in large part because those countries don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. But all of this only goes to show that foreign aid to Israel is bad policy. To cut it off does not mean we are taking the side of Arabs. There is such a thing as neutrality.

If a similar dispute existed in Africa involving the same size of territory and number of people, we would probably ignore it entirely and call it "tribal" warfare - perhaps blaming it on the artificial boundaries created by European imperialists. A similar dispute in Southern or East Asia also would only barely get our attention. To the extent we are interested in the Balkans or meddle in the affairs of ex-Soviet Republics, we do so only to humiliate Russia. The U.S. may be more interested if something like it existed in the Americas - only because of our historically paternalistic attitude toward our neighbors - but even then it wouldn't consume nearly as much of our time and attention as does Israel, which is the size of Massachusetts.

Of course, every conflict is unfortunate. Human suffering, particularly war-related suffering is tragic anywhere. But human suffering outside of the U.S., and not caused by the U.S., is not the U.S.'s problem.

Some would try to persuade me that it's "obvious" that Israel is in the right, or that it's "obvious" that the Palestinians are victims of Israeli aggression, and that it's my "duty" to "see this clearly." But why should I even bother to study this, or form an opinion at all, when I don't bother to do so with most other national and ethnic strife in the world? This conflict is several hundred miles away from oil fields. The region may be of interest to some religious people, but they can donate money to the Israeli government on their own if they so choose. There is simply no vital U.S. interest on the east coast of the Mediterranean.

Why should I mourn the death of an Israeli more than anybody else? Because of his religion? Because he lives in a democracy? Because of his skin color? These are all very bad reasons. The Israeli is no more entitled to American protection, aid, or sympathy than any other person on the planet. No more than a Somalian or Albanian. Or Palestinian.