Sobering perspectives on Israel

Opening Statement from your next President:

QUOTE: If I, Steven Searle, am elected as the next President of the United States, I won't be throwing any nuclear bombs (or any other kind) around if Israel is attacked. Not even if Israel is attacked by nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, I will not permit US military forces to help defend Israel if it's attacked by either conventional or nuclear weapons. In fact, I will totally remove our troops as far from the Middle East as possible, as far out of harm's way as possible.

In addition, I will bar sales of US military equipment to Israel, even if I have to order the US Navy to physically intercept such shipments.

Last but not least, I will withdraw US diplomatic recognition from Israel, granting that status instead to Palestine which includes areas now occupied by West Bank Jewish settlements. :UNQUOTE.

In opposition to current US policy

In 2008, then candidate Hillary Clinton had strongly hinted that she would use nukes against Iran, in response to any Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

John McCain had made his position clear by coming across as a silly old man by singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of an old Beach Boys' song Barbara Ann: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

Not to be outdone by his rivals, we had these words of wisdom from the Apostle of Change himself, Barack Obama:

QUOTE:  ...we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza.:UNQUOTE [

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-littman/barack-obamas-unwavering_b_83721.html ]

I stand in sharp contrast to the conventional thinking expressed by these Three with my position: "The US has overextended itself in an exaggerated and unnatural way by engaging in hyper concerns over Israel's security for a prolonged period of time. It's high time we stopped allowing the Israeli government to exert such disproportionate influence over US policy."

My policy regarding Israel's security

One of the most profound and undemocratic powers listed in - and derived from - the US Constitution is the President's right to totally control US foreign policy. Even though I detest this arrangement and will work to change it, I will (meanwhile) declare it to be US policy to shift the burden of Israel's security where it belongs: Directly onto the shoulders of the Israeli military and any allies it can enlist in their cause - most appropriately, from among the various European nations or from the EU itself.

The most appropriate keepers-of-the-peace in the Mediterranean basin should be the nations of the Mediterranean basin itself.

Some will argue that the US should guarantee Israel's right to exist. Why? For one thing, there are no guarantees in life. Does that mean I don’t think Israel has a right to exist? As a Buddhist all I can offer is this: Whether a state (or living being) has a right to exist, or has a right to exist in poor or exalted circumstances, is a matter entirely up to its karma. It is inappropriate to even discuss whether a state or person has a right to exist since (as the saying goes) “it is what it is.”

The US didn't rush in to assert Tibet's right to exist when the Chinese invaded in 1950. Nor is the US bending over backwards - or even lifting a finger - to assert any right to exist for Kurdistan. [NOTE: What is called "Kurdistan" covers a lot more territory and includes a lot more Kurds than does the Kurdish Autonomous Zone in northern Iraq.]

Besides: Israel has 200 nuclear weapons at its disposal.

Not to mention: God is on Israel's side, so the US military is hardly necessary.

And finally this: There is no formal treaty binding the United States to the defense of Israel. This might come as a huge surprise to people who feed too much on what the mainstream media has to offer, but it's true. When Barack Obama spoke (above) of a "total commitment to our unique defense relationship [my emphasis]," he wasn't kidding: This relationship is rhetorical! It is not in the form of a treaty, as codified in (for instance) the treaty that created NATO.

Some numbers to keep in mind

The United States is overexerting itself in the name of Israel - in other words, on behalf of a nation of 7.7 million persons. Or, to be more precise, on behalf of a nation of 7.7 million people, of whom the US cares exclusively for the 75% who are Jewish.

We're talking about a US willingness to engage in nuclear war on behalf of six million Jews. There are 30 cities in the world which have more people than that! And I'm talking about cities in terms of population contained within city limits - excluding those living in the greater metropolitan areas.

And yet, you won't hear the United States rattling the nuclear saber on behalf of any of these 30 cities. There is no unique defense relationship binding us to any of them.

To put a finer point on these numbers, only 1 out of 1,000 people in the world are Jews living in Israel. If the US even attempted to exert itself as mightily on behalf of the other 999 (mostly non-Jews) out of 1,000, the US would quickly discover it couldn't afford the $3 trillion annual price tag.

Much has been said about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East (unless you want to count Iraq). However, I believe Israel's democracy is overrated, their de facto government actually being a theocracy.

Consider: 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jewish Arabs. If that number increased, approaching the point of threatening Jewish political control of the country, how long do you think it would take for this "democratic" Jewish majority to vote to deny its Arab citizens the right to vote?

Democracies can be just dandy, as long as real political control remains in the hands of the people who really matter.

One noteworthy dissenter

One of Israel's foes is Ahmadinejad of Iran, who once asked: "If you [of the West] have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel?" Naturally, the world community (or, actually, its non-Islamic members - the ones who count) vehemently denounced this statement for its larger context of holocaust denial. However, the point of the question was not lost on Moslems worldwide, though I would personally rephrase Ahmadinejad's question this way:

"Since it was Germany which was responsible, as a matter of state policy brought about by a democratic election, for murdering millions of Jews, why wasn't Germany penalized by being made to forfeit the 8.9% of its land needed to create the State of Israel within its borders?"

Actually, that would have been 8.9% of what was known as West Germany. In terms of the area Germany currently occupies, that would be 6%. Either way, it would have been less than a 10% tithing would have warranted - not to mention what an atonement would have warranted.

This is the kind of thinking which would resonate well throughout the Islamic world. Not just in the salons of the intellectuals, but among the men and women in the street.

And yet, we of the West wear blinders, thinking of Europe as the home of what we consider the best that civilization has to offer. But we give scant, if any, thought to the other legacies of Europe: colonization and slavery on a scale unknown in world history, not to mention two World Wars.

Conclusion

We have to engage in new thinking about the Middle East, especially concerning our role in that part of the world. And the only force on earth that can do this will come from independent Congressmen. If, however, we keep voting for Democrats and Republicans, we’ll keep seeing the same old tired spectacle every election cycle – that is, how these guys keep trying to outdo themselves pledging allegiance to Israel.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I am very much in favor of rethinking this US/Israel codependency, going for a broader unified world concept. Haven’t we had enough of tribalism?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com