Do Not Fail Israel

I have heard rumblings on the radio in the last few days that the United States has informed Israel that it can only provide political cover for its efforts against Hezbollah for another ten to fourteen days. I hope this is not the case, and if it is, shame on the Bush Administration and the United States of America for not standing by and supporting Israel—an honorable democracy and every bit the victim of terror that we are, if not more—in its fight against an evil that would destroy it.

We are in the same boat as the Israelis. When we were attacked on 9/11, and the lives of thousands of our fellow Americans were lost, did we not vow to destroy and bring to justice those responsible, and those who aimed to do it again? Is it not that generational pursuit that we are now engaged in? Why would we not—nay, how could we not—stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, a nation that is engaged in the same situation and pursuit we are (and have been for much longer than we have), in this time of struggle?

Israel’s fight is our fight, and their enemies are our enemies and the enemies of free people throughout the world. Hezbollah’s destruction would not only make Israel more secure, it would make the Middle East and the free world more secure, and the world itself a better place.

Instead of emasculating Israel in its time of need, we should stand squarely beside them. We should unequivocally declare, with as much force, moral certitude, and resolution as we did in those days following 9/11, that we support Israel’s right in this endeavor and share its might in fighting terrorist evil for as long as it takes.

I hope and pray we, the United States of America, will not fail Israel at a moment when it fights for us every bit as much as it fights for itself.

Comment Response

Comment-"Thoughts on the Middle East"

Okay, I read your blog and understood every other word (haha j.k) and agreed with what you said. However, if you don't mind I do have a few questions for you:

1. This is just your personal opinion. Honestly, do you feel that this is, or very likely could be, the early rumblings of WWIII? How long can we keep using diplomacy to stall a full force confrontation between the terrorists and those they attack? I think you realize that all the diplomacy in the world will not stop them from eventually attacking again.
2. Why are the terrorists (and Iran, Syria, anywhere that harbors them) against Israel and western civilization as a whole in the first place? Why did they first begin attacking Israel and the U.S.A? What are their motives, desires, etc.?
3. Do you frequently use so many large words in your normal, day to day conversations or only when you are writing and/or speaking on political issues?

Those were just some things I was wondering about and you seem informed enough that I can at least consider your opinon, so I look forward to your response. If it will be a long response and you'd rather respond by email or something let me know, k?

Anonymous:

1. Whether this is the beginning of World War III or not, I don’t know. Someone will have to explain to me more clearly what exactly is meant by the term or characterization "World War III".

I do believe that a confrontation between—individually or in a combination of—Israel, the United States, and the democratic world with nations such as Syria and Iran is probably inevitable. We are already in a full-force confrontation with Islamist terrorism.

As I stated in my post, Iran has cataclysmic ambitions and will very likely spark a confrontation with the West, especially as they continue to feel greater pressure and isolation with the burgeoning democracy growing on their doorstep in Iraq.

I don’t see the value of diplomacy when you are dealing with nations and groups who seek your destruction, as the Islamo-fascist ideology and its adherents seek ours.

2. A lot of their motivation is their fascistic, nihilistic religious outlook. They see Western culture and democracy as a threat or abomination towards that outlook. As the leader and standard bearer of Western culture and democracy, the United States is naturally their target. They clearly desire a medievalist Islamic civilization built upon the ruins of modern western culture.

Israel is the only viable, Western-style democracy in the Middle East at this point, so they are naturally a primary target. Israel is also located on holy land that radical Islamists believe is theirs and that Israel has no right to. These people refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist after all, and actively promise and seek its destruction. Their anti-Semitism is also a large motivation for their murder.

A more basic reason for their beliefs and actions is that they are, plain and simple, evil; and will employ evil means to reach their ends.

3. Yes, I usually do use such words in most of my conversation, especially in conversations, written or spoken, concerning politics and current events. The level and formality of the conversation generally dictates the level and formality of my verbiage.

I hope my answers are to your satisfaction. If not let me know and I will be glad to elaborate and/or clarify further. Thank you for the questions and for visiting my site. I hope you will do so regularly.

Cracker: I always appreciate the kind words and encouragement. You have been my most loyal reader and friend from the beginning of this site and I am very grateful for that.

Thoughts on the Middle East

Prior to the recent elevation and extension of belligerence in the Middle East the conflict between Israel and Islamic terror had been a game of charades, in multiple ways. The endurance of armed confrontation and terrorism, and the specter of impending war, have ended this duplicitous game however, and exposed its illegitimacy.

Under the previous state there was an imaginary distinction between the Palestinian factions perpetrating acts of terror upon Israel and Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Authority. Though Arafat encouraged, sponsored, and benefitted form the terror, he managed to publicly condemn specific acts of terror each time they occurred so as to assiduously maintain the charade that he was not responsible, but instead needed more power, more leniency, to bring the terror factions within his society to bear. As a product, he was never held to account by the international community for his actions and Israel was prevented from responding to the original and culpable source of the terror it lay victim to.

This distinction can be claimed no longer. The Palestinians perpetrating the terror, primarily Hamas, are now the democratically elected representatives and authority of the Palestinian people. Though many skeptical of democracy in the Middle East have pointed to the Palestinian elections as proof of its poisoned fruits, those elections have brought clarity to the state of affairs within the Palestinian territories and their approach to Israel. Terror is systemic of the Palestinian culture carefully incubated by the late terror-in-chief Arafat, and has become, officially and undeniably, state policy. Israel may now, at long last, respond accordingly.

The rising crises has also betrayed the longstanding charade that the impetus for terror against Israel was its occupation of disputed lands. Israel has vacated Gaza and southern Lebanon, but still Hamas and Hezbollah wage war against Israel. Why? As we all suspected, the cause of terror was never about occupation but Israel’s very existence. Short of Israel’s destruction nothing will appease these terrorist murders and induce them to lay down their arms, missiles, and bomb-laden belts.

Israel’s only refuge is to destroy those who would destroy them, precisely what they seem to be on the verge of doing in Lebanon. International pleas for another cease-fire and "moderation" are null. Cease-fires only give the terrorists respite and opportunity to prepare for their next round of murderous atrocities. Why would anyone want to extend this failed history and the tragic cycle of terror and violence?

Israel is entirely within its right to invade Lebanon. Hezbollah has entered Israel and captured Israeli soldiers, and they have used southern Lebanon as a base from which to launch attacks. Anyone who would prevent Israel from entering Lebanon and eliminating Hezbollah would deny Israel the right to defend itself and would grant Hezbollah the sanctuary to wage war against Israel with impunity.

Even further extension by Israel would be justified no less. Targeting Hamas and Hezbollah alone is tantamount to mowing the lawn—it’s only going to grow back. Neither of those respective organizations would be able to operate with the lethality they do were it not for their state patrons of Syrian and Iran. Through their proxies, both nations are able to wage war against Israel without actually waging war. This tactic is an attempt to obfuscate their involvement and to immunize themselves from being held to account, by both Israel and the international community, and it should not be tolerated.

Could anyone, in good conscience, prevent Israel from waging war against nations who unscrupulously wage war against it and, in regards to Iran, have promised to exterminate them?

If anyone could, or would, let it not be the United States. Iran specifically does not just wage war against Israel, for Israel, due to it’s standing in the region as the lone, western democracy, is, in effect, only a proxy for democratic civilization, for whom the United States is the leading standard-bearer and representative.

Iran’s belligerence has been poorly hidden, and it only grows bolder as the world fecklessly responds to its nuclear development. A confrontation with the west is all but inevitable, and should the Israelis decide to confront the Iranian threat to its existence before it possesses a nuclear capacity the United States should stand alongside them. As Iran would destroy Israel, it would also destroy, and is actively seeking to destroy, democracy and stability in the Middle East. Iran’s apocalyptic ambitions and visions of its own place and mission in the region could not be more dangerous if allowed to burgeon.

Diplomacy itself may not be dead, but with Iran categorically determined to acquire nuclear capability the possibility of diplomacy is only viable in regards to the international community coming together to stymie Iran. It is possible, I suppose, that crippling sanctions could bring down the regime. But if those sanctions failed to work, diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake must be abandoned.

If a nuclear Iran is as "unacceptable" as everyone says it is—and it is—than the international community, or at least those within the community responsible enough, must do what is necessary to prevent it. That burden should not be Israel’s to shoulder alone. A nuclear Iran threatens all of democratic civilization, not just Israel, and all of democratic civilization must be prepared to stop it.

The Public Interest & The N.Y. & L.A. Times

The New York and Los Angeles Times recently published stories disclosing a classified anti-terror government program which monitored terrorist finances through the surveillance of banking transactions. "In the end," stated the editor of the Los Angeles Times, "we felt that the legitimate public interest in this program outweighed the political cost to counter terrorism efforts.....We have an obligation to cover the government, with its tremendous power and to offer information about its activities so citizens can make their own decisions. That’s the role of the press in our democracy." It is beyond dispute that in a viable democracy the press has an august responsibility to not simply cover the government, but to proficiently scrutinize it. What is at question is whether these respective newspapers served the public interest or offended it in this specific affair. Having given weight to the nature of the program and, most importantly, the broader context which provided the complete inducement for it, the only conclusion I can reach is the public interest was contravened, not served, here.

Transparency and accountability in government are generally the requisite traits and hallmarks of democratic self-government. From the most obscure municipal government, to state government, to the national government; public erudition of the conduct of public servants is integral to insuring they are serving the public interest. Government transparency is a mighty bulwark protecting the public from nefarious public servants who require a shroud of secrecy to diabolically abuse, in whatever manner, the public trust placed in them. Additionally, the people’s apprehension of the totality of their government at work lends to their ability to competently evaluate the candidates and issues placed before them each election day.

As a conservative, my most natural reaction is to cringe upon hearing the words "secret government program." In abstraction, conservatives distrust arbitrary government power, a sentiment amplified if said power is exercised surreptiously. Government’s cardinal tendency, left unbridled, is to aggrandize its own power and influence. A government so unencumbered and omnipresently empowered serves it own interest, and the interests of those individuals who constitute it, to the detriment of the public. Prevention of this depends upon limitations, structural and practical, placed on the government’s power. For a conservative, limited and enumerated powers are synonymous with, if not the determination of, good, accountable government. Without them little would staunch government usurpation.

Unfortunately, practical realities occasionally preclude the luxury of operating within abstract theory. The obligation of the federal government, specifically the president, to effectively protect national security boisterously exemplifies this. Classified government power, executed within the confines of strictly constructed parameters, is indispensably linked to protecting America from her enemies. Were the president and the federal government to be prohibited from maintaining secrets in the interest of national security, they would be denied the means to achieving that end.

In these specific times the unconventional nature of our enemies only amplifies this. Al-Qaeda and its operatives and followers are dogged in their pursuit to kill as many innocent Americans as possible. They operate in virtual anonymity, amongst and undistinguishable from the innocent. The intelligence methods of yesterday—crafted towards the adversaries of yesterday—are archaic methods inadequate towards thwarting them. Phone and bank records, not aerial surveillance or conventional espionage, are mandatory in identifying and stopping those who would, individually or in small groups, perpetuate acts of terror on American soil and on American interests.

These programs are vital, and their efficacy is contingent upon their confidentiality. It is self-evident that sustainable detection and surveillance of terrorist threats is possible only when those threats are themselves ignorant of their detection and surveillance. Should they become aware of their detection and surveillance, and the means through which they are detected and observed, they will obviously adapt and craft other manners through which to operate outside of our observation, compromising (to put it heavily euphemistically) our capability to foil their barbaric intentions.

According to the New York and Los Angeles Times, this debilitating consequence is an acceptable exchange for aiding the public’s presumably heavier interest in preventing any possible presidential or governmental abuse of power. Blithely ignoring the very real, tangible threat our enemies pose, the editors felt justified in spoiling an effective means in countering that threat based upon a conceived and hypothetical threat posed by the possibility that the president or government may abuse the power they have and exercise in enacting those means.

This paralyzing logic would, if propagated further, devastate national security and America’s ability to wage this war on terror. If the mere hypothetical possibility that the president or federal government could abuse their power and responsibility to protect and preserve national security justified a program to public exposure, then every newspaper, magazine, television news program—every reporting agency under the sun—would have license to expose any and every program—covert or overt, no matter how successful or narrowly tailored within the confines of the law—to the public. In such a state we’d be powerless to protect ourselves, but at least we’d be secure from the possibility of the government abusing its power to protect us, never mind that the federal government would be impotent in its obligation and responsibility in that sphere, for which the power was given it in the first place.

Of course, this rationale is intrinsically illogical. The president and the federal government have an obligation to protect the nation. To fulfill this obligation they must have the requisite powers, or access to the appropriate means, to do so. As Madison states in Federalist 44, "wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included." The New York and Los Angeles Times would deny the president and the federal government these powers and access to the appropriate means simply because there is a hypothetical possibility that they may employ those powers and means abusively.

This in itself is specious justification. Every power vested in the government, whether it be related to national security or not, can hypothetically be abused. Should government itself then be abolished? I doubt the Times’ believe this. The possibility that a power may be abused is an inherent appendage to granting that power. To borrow from Justice Scalia: "A system of separate and coordinate powers necessarily involves an acceptance of exclusive power that can theoretically be abused."

The public has an interest in insuring the president and federal government do not abuse the powers the public has placed in them. In this regard the New York and Los Angeles Times were correct. However, the public also has an interest in the president and the federal government adopting the necessary means to keep them safe. The latter outweighs the former, yet the actions of the two respective papers served the former at the expense of the latter. Because of this the papers contravened, not served, the public interest.