McCain Bad for Jews/Israel?

by

Ron Coleman disagrees and provides an alternative hypothesis:

Like a good Zionist, Goldberg looks everywhere for Israel’s disastrous state but the most obvious place: Israel. The vast majority of its awful policy decisions, whether in terms of defense, international relations, tactics, economics and domestic policy, are not in any way decided or even on the radar on Pennsylvania Avenue. They are the result of a string of breathtakingly incompetent governments purporting to run a depressingly corrupt kleptocracy to please an obsolescing and self-loathing elite that lacks the will to even purport to lead a confused and mainly unmotivated populace that obsesses on a slim minority of practitioners of its own religion in its midst as the bogeyman that explains its existential hopelessness. A preposterously irrational and self-destructive foreign policy is almost besides the point and is hardly a surprise — but a secular Zionist can hardly be expected to wrestle with this honestly when there are Republicans to blame and election in the air.

I don’t share Ron’s disdain for secular Zionists, not all of whom are leftists and not all of whom are unwilling to blame Israel for its own mistakes. However, I agree that Israel’s current problems are largely of its own making, the consequence of years of bad leadership. Bush II has been, until recently, the most pro-Israel US president since Truman, and I see no reason to think McCain would be much worse. (I do think there’s reason to expect Obama to be worse, a la Jimmy Carter.) Goldberg ignores the fact that Israel’s leaders have made numerous bad decisions (empowering Arafat, withdrawing precipitately from Lebanon and Gaza, not attacking Syria or destroying Hezbollah in 2006, etc.), and have always had the option of saying no to ill-conceived US proposals. Israel’s central problem is its corrupt political culture — largely the result of socialism, a poorly designed electoral system that makes leaders unaccountable, and an addiction to US subsidies. I don’t know what the remedy for Israel’s fundamental problems is, or if there is a remedy, but blaming Bush or McCain seems way off the mark.

30 thoughts on “McCain Bad for Jews/Israel?”

  1. The cliche remains: he who pays the piper plays the tune and thus no matter the many nutty things that take place in Israeli politics, the US is still the driving force behind what will and will not take place in the region. Busbh was indeed a good friend to that beleaguered state. And I believe Obama and/or McCain will be too.

  2. Goldberg’s theory makes no sense at all. In recent decades, the primary driver of anti-Israel opinion—and out outright anti-Semitism—has been the “progressive” movement. Anything that strengthens the Democratic party strengthens this movement.

  3. This illustrates the fatal flaw in the parliamentary multi-party system. It never ceases to amaze me that people choose that system over one that has given the world the longest lived, most prosperous country in the world.

  4. The problem in Israel isn’t the parliamentary system as such, it’s proportional representation. Voters vote for party lists rather than individuals, so individual pols are almost unaccountable to voters and fringe parties have wildly excessive influence in governing coalitions. It’s a badly designed system as democratic governments go. Many parliamentary democracies function better.

  5. Done some reading and it appears that BBC recently did a survey in 22 countries, asking people who they belive would improve Americas relation with the rest of the world. Well to summon up ”¦

    46 percent voted for Obama and

    20 percent for Mcain and

    34 percent said they where not shure!

    AH”¦ In Canada which after all is the neighbouring country 69 percent voted for Obama, Italy 64%, France 62% and Germany 61%”¦

    Nobody likes Mcain! Atleast not if you ask”¦ the rest of the WORLD!

    ONLY in USA”¦ in a new survey it reveals that Obama gets 47 percent of the votes and Mcain 46! How in the world is it that the rest of the planet, people like Obama vastly more than Mr Mcain ”¦ while only in The US, it appears to be equal?

    No matter the reason, I believe the rest of the planet also should get their say in this election”¦ (or at least the 100 countries America has put under their military control !!) Anybody more affected by an election should be able to vote”¦ otherwise it cant under any circumstances be called a democratic system. We live in a global world where no nation stands excluded from neighbours around. Obviously its hard to have a global election for the president-post in every country, but think about it”¦ don’t you believe a great deal of people in Iraq are more affected by this election than a whole lot of people in the USA”¦ ? I do! If the US e´wants all this global military/financial responsibility, they can atleast hear what the world has to say”¦ jao!

    But hey ”¦ anywho anyways anywhat, that just me right!?

  6. 1) the survey in question was completed in all countries by August 27, and in many countries by the end of July; McCain didn’t even announce his running mate until Aug 29. During the period of time when Obama was campaigning as a “citizen of the world” and McCain was hardly campaigning, the results will be skewed Obama’s way.

    2) in 9 of the surveyed countries, they only surveyed cities, which tend to be more to the left than rural areas. In several countries, the press is government-controlled, and many of those countries would prefer a weaker US; the fact that their people favor Obama makes me favor McCain even more. And very few countries value their freedom and independence the way we do; that’s not meant to be an insult, it’s simply the reality of American life.

    3) 22 countries is hardly “the rest of the world”; there are 192 UN member states plus 53 other sovereign entities. Of particular note, this “world” survey left out Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, South Korea, the Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, and Israel, all of which benefit from American military might. You argue that “a great deal of people in Iraq are more affected by this election” yet you cite a survey that didn’t include Iraqis!

    4) merely being “affected” by an election does not grant you the right to contribute to it. The Soviets were definitely affected by Reagan, and would have preferred a surrender monkey in his place, but they definitely shouldn’t have had the right to vote. If you’re in a foreign country and you care about our election, you have to convince some of us to vote your way… and you’re not going to do it by tossing out biased “world” polls that don’t even include the people who are most directly reliant on us right now.

  7. Good point there Boys in Chicago”¦
    To bad the survey wasnt done in at least the Middle Eastern countries”¦ because having Bush twin on the throne of Washington isn’t their idea either”¦ believe me!

  8. Bob,

    why should I believe you? You’re not from Iraq or Afghanistan, and have given no indication that you know people who are. You didn’t even notice that those countries were missing from the survey when you first spoke of it.

    And you said just a few days ago on your blog that America’s legal system is “guilty until proven innocent”, demonstrating a profound lack of knowledge. You also think McCain is a “bush clone”, which is simply nonsense. Credibility matters, and right now, you don’t have it. Sorry.

  9. Credability mohohaha…

    Allow me to quote my dear boy from Chicago,
    ” In several countries, the press is government-controlled, and many of those countries would prefer a weaker US; the fact that their people favor Obama makes me favor McCain even more”
    Here I presume you are talking about the counties this survey was done… meaning European countries foremost… and You are accusing their media for being government-controlled… well there goes you credibility (!?!?!) And by a weaker US… as you accuse these countries wanting, do you mean that countries wish a less military grip? yes… obviously!

    You are right that Americans value their independence and freedom which is good by all means, as long as you are able to see yourselves in the mirror and face the problems this patriotism is creating.

    If Mcain or whoever becomes president… depending on the actual act of the future president, If you guys (cause for some reason I presume you are American, I am not) continue your foreign policy as Mcain seems eager to do… you will unfortunately bankrupt yourself… but I assume you boys in Chicago new that! But hey, I guess that’s the cost if you don’t want “a weak US!!”

    And as for knowledge about the middle eastern people since you asked for details, yes I now many people from Iraq and Iran and through conversation I get to know what they think…

    ps… still think mcain is a bushclone… “Arab experts say a win by US presidential hopeful John McCain brings no change to Bush’s policies blamed for destabilizing the Mideast.”

    Need more convincing

    Peace out /b

  11. Only 6 of the 22 countries in the survey were European, and 2 were in North America. 3 were South American, 2 African, 4 or 5 in the Middle East, and most of the remainder in southeast asia. And yes, several of the countries surveyed DO have state-controlled media.

    Come back when you’ve actually read the survey and can discuss it intelligently. Also come back when you understand why I didn’t mention Iran as one of the countries they should’ve surveyed, and when you understand why I don’t trust “Arab experts” farther than I can throw them.

  12. ooooh, boy this seems to have nothing with the survey to do… I believe you should look up a word called ethnocentrism… before you accuse countries arround the world. I am trying to see your point, now you do the same… dont fight for a nations liberation if you dont want to hear them out…. ethnocentrism my friend, homework.

  13. Bob, don’t give me this “I am trying to see your point” crap.

    You were wrong to cite a survey that was taken at a time when McCain hadn’t even been campaigning, and hadn’t selected his running mate, while Obama was giving speeches in Germany, and pretend it’s even remotely credible.

    You were wrong to say the survey covered the “world” when it only included 22 countries (out of the 245 countries or other sovereign entities in the world.)

    You were wrong to imply that, since Iraqis will be effected, we should listen to a survey that didn’t include Iraqis anyway.

    You were wrong to claim that the survey was done in European countries foremost, and take my comment as an attack on those European countries, when only about a quarter of the countries in the survey were European.

    You haven’t even attempted to acknowledge my points. You’ve dismissed them or ducked around them. You didn’t even read the survey you claim is so important! And then you go and call me “ethnocentric” and lecture me on how I should try to see your point? Seriously? Listen, I get your point. You personally don’t like McCain, and a lot of others worldwide don’t either, including some of your Iraqi and Iranian friends and some “Arab experts”. And you wish you could do something to stop him from being elected. Since you can’t vote, all you have are words, so you’re going to try to use your words to change someone’s mind.

    Now listen to my point: if you’re going to try to change someone’s mind, you’d better know what you’re talking about. Read the survey before you go spouting off about what it does and doesn’t say. Learn the difference between Iraqi and Iranian expats living in your country and those still on the ground in Iraq. Take a few moments to contemplate what withdrawal from Iraq would actually mean, both for the Iraqis still there, and for American military and diplomatic strength, particularly against Russia and China. And understand that we Americans don’t take any more kindly to you telling us how to vote than you would to us telling you how to vote.

  15. Bob,

    1) I’m not a Chicago Boyz. I’m just a guy from a long ways away from Chicago who happens to like this site.
    2) Moveon has about as much credibility in my eyes as “Arab experts”. Both groups have an agenda that includes the weakening of America.
    3) I’d love to listen to average Iraqis (who are mostly Arabs), just not the “experts” who generally have strongly anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments.
    4) Answer me this question straight up: did you read the survey?

  16. well this is fun, you seem to get a little upset =)
    Dont worry I have read the survey, merely stated general facts whish one can draw from it… Every big nation is represented every, cotinent is represented… so me saing “world” is not an understatement, its a general coclusion not far from the real facts, but you read it all so who am I to quetion you!!!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm
    = for anyone else

    Briefly you looove Mcain, and I dont like Bush because of his “rule the world” way of seing America (or could it be controll the oil?!)… and now mcain is taking over bush policies in this area aswell…… that much we have learned. However I respect your vote on mcsame because I do understand there is a major “love for AMERICAAAA”, “look out for one owns interests” than the rest. Personaly I believe the world is as I said in the beginning getting more global and whatever you decide to vote it will affect everyone, so please consider… the rest!

  17. Did you read the actual survey, or just a summary? Had you read it before I asked? Your shift from “primarily Europe” to “every continent” makes me wonder. Also, I’ve stated several reasons you can’t trust the general facts from the survey, including the time the survey was taken, the relatively small number of countries chosen, and the lack of surveys from the particular countries that are the most reliant on American military might right now. What do you think of those reasons?

    I don’t love McCain. I think he’s a passable candidate with a good VP. I don’t think America needs to “rule the world”, but I do think we need to protect our interests as well as our allies, and I don’t trust Obama to do so. I understand that what we do affects the whole world, which is why I care about voting for a candidate who will stand up to Russia, China, and the Islamofascists. It’s why I care about voting for a candidate who will lead the way toward more freedom in our own country, toward lower taxes and less government intrusion into our lives. I care about voting for a candidate who’ll show the rest of the world that small government of-by-for-the-people really DOES function better than the unelected socialists of the EU. I care about voting for a candidate who’ll lead the world away from the weird Al Gore enviro-religion and toward sensible energy policies. I honestly think those are the best policies, and I think the rest of the world will benefit from America adopting them, and even moreso if they follow suit.

  18. All goods point not to vote for Mcain, I would say!
    I believe one has to go to the reasons that a number of countries are against The US… or foremost against the American foreign policy… there is a reason and so America is protecting itself instead of seeking out reasons not to need all this protection!
    Bush made a lot of similar promises before taking the oath, but its a matter of living up to these promises, and there Mcain has less credibility… much due to his, and I say again, Bush-like politics. Don’t you believe that all these 22 countries… (who are represent able for numerous other countries as well!) actually are on to something, or is it just foreign jibjab! Merely the fact that other countries want Obama at the post, would directly improve international relationships, and start the diplomatics … without him doing much in the beginning!

    You mention allies which directly imply you got enemies! Unfortunately historical happenings has led to this fact, but instead of just protecting allies, what about getting less enemies?… could work as well, and saves a whole lot of money… leading to the fact that you pay less tax, and can buy that brand new flat screen… Concluding that if people out there are happier so will you be! And Obama allready has a head start.

  19. There’s a difference between, say, France being “against” the US and Iran being “against” the US. Don’t lump them together. We could certainly change our diplomatic policy and have France change their tune, but to change Iran’s government perspective, we’d have to bow to the 12th imam, and probably let them nuke Israel too. That’s not acceptable to me. The fact is, we are going to have enemies; the world isn’t going to turn into fuzzy bunnies and sunshine if we just “play nice”. So we absolutely must remain strong and ready to fight.

    Obama makes our enemies happier because he makes it easier for them to impose their will on the world. If you want to see imperialism, don’t look at GW Bush and chant “no blood for oil”; wait until Putin faces down a pansy liberal US president. Some of the 22 countries surveyed are our enemies and they will remain as such until THEIR governments stop desiring to conquer others and take their stuff, or conquer others to establish the caliphate, or whatever. It’s going to be expensive to fight our enemies, and more expensive to just let them win.

    I, frankly, don’t care if Europeans “like” us because of Obama or “dislike” us because of McCain. Y’all will conduct trade with us regardless. You won’t go out and try to conquer your neighbors regardless. Bush has strained the relationship between the US and a lot of other countries, if by “strained” you mean “led to a lot of whining but nothing of consequence.” And I’m OK with that. I don’t need you or your country to “like” me or to think our relations are “better”. I need Putin and the Chicoms to behave themselves because they know a war with America will be costly, and I need the Islamikazes to keep getting hunted down by the US military.

  20. As for “countries that are the most reliant on American military might right now”… Do you honestly think these countries would see mcain become the president? Well one can only make asumptions since no survey over has been done there, which is what I am doing believing that their neighbouring nation and cultures who where a part af this survey, dont differ in the extent you believe they do. Rarely has the US. been seen as liberators, but rather imperalistic actors in conflicts involving oil.

    Russia, China and a number of other countries are acting in ways we might believe are wrong… but one has to understand what is currently fueling their beliefs? And by spitting on them and calling them enemies aint going to solve it at all, maybee that is what is causing all this tumult in the first place! After all there is a reason that USA are less trustworthy after this Bush-era. Somewhere somebody has to take the responsibility to… not call the enemy enemy, but a probable future collegue. Macain, sorry to say it doesnt seem to be that person. Dont get me wrong, America is the largest and strongest nation (and rarely hide this fact)… so with this resposibility, knowing you can crush anybody military-wise if you like… dont see people as enemies, because nobody likes “big brother”, and a lot of counter-actions will come to be if you do.

    That was more a sermon =)

  21. You would rather kill the ‘evil’ enemy out there than befriend them, and you dont care what others such as the europeans think about you?… Well there you have the typicall American. Nice (!!)

  23. I do honestly think Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Georgia, the Ukraine, and Israel would prefer a militarily strong USA under McCain to a militarily weak USA under Obama; I don’t believe “cultural similarities” are more important than “wanting to be safe” (but speaking of cultural similarities, did you notice how high McCain’s support was in Lebanon?) There certainly are those who believe the imperialism/oil LIE that continues to be spread (why did you LIE in a sermon?), but there are also those who realize we didn’t just go into Iraq and secure the oil, we went in and fought the bad guys and set up a government where people actually have a say in their own lives. There are those who realize that we honestly do want the Iraqi people to have better lives, who haven’t fallen for the imperialism LIE you just spread.

    There are some enemies who can’t be befriended (namely, the Islamofascists who are trying to rebuild the caliphate.) We must either fight them or submit to them, and submitting isn’t really an option. And there are other enemies who will only accept the “befriend” option if we make the “fight” option prohibitively costly for them. Russia, for example, is not going to work with us if they can just as easily conquer Georgia and steal all their stuff — but if they know going into Georgia will trigger a costly war, they’re more likely to bargain. Similarly for China and Taiwan. We don’t need to be able to completely dominate either of them, we just need to be able to make military conflict the less desirable option. (You’re a fool if you believe Russia is acting up because we called them mean things. They’re acting up because they believe invading Georgia is cost-effective. The solution isn’t to be nicer to them, it’s to make invading not-cost-effective.)

    I can’t just “not see people as enemies”; I have to view them as they are, which in some cases means I view them as partly friends and partly enemies. Wishful thinking is worthless. Both Russia and China have a choice to either be enemies or be friends, and the only way they’ll take the “friends” option is if the “enemies” option is too expensive for them.

    I really don’t care what the typical European thinks about me or my country. I’m not a 13 year old kid desperately seeking the approval of my peers. I’m an adult who makes decisions based on what I think is best, not based on what I think will make me popular. I find it insulting that you’d expect me to do otherwise.

    Oh, and not only do I read the Bible, my wife and I wrote extensive curriculum on Biblical interpretation. So if you really want to go there, we can go there.

  24. ok, since I dont havent heard any response, I will mention it myself. Ethnocentric briefly means that one sees the world only from you own culurally point of view and believe others should do the same. The world doenst look like Americans see it (neither how I see it) but they do act upon their own belief of what they belive is right and indirectly force others to do the same.

    Liberating Iraq sounds nice, but the conflict started out based on lies… or LIES as you so humbly express youerself…. that Saddam was holding on to chemical weapons! (I am not saying he is a nice kind of guy).. or maybee that is only how our amzingly biased media put it =) Why I ask myself, why did Bush choose this particular country to invade?… oil?, legacy from his father? counteract from 9/11? goodwill?… there are soooo many conflict in Africa for example where people are in need of freedom, but where there is no gain, there doesnt seem to be any USA!.. LIE you loudly say to the word Imperalism (=attitude of superiority, subordination and/or dominion over foreign people)… what word would you USE instead? maybee ethnocentrism? …

    There are other ways than war and threats, I am not saying ONLY the US are putting up a bad example, but because of the power you expose, you shure are amoung the ones who also should show that you are big enough to set an example of antiviolence.

    ok, mister professor, where in the Bible should I read to contradict “love thy enemy”, or where in the Bible do you support “and I need the Islamikazes to keep getting hunted down by the US military” ? ask your wife.
    By the way I surely do respect your faith, as I am a christian myself, and your opinion ofcource, but it all seems very double-sided, contradictive.

    ps, watch out before you accuse someone of lying, especially in a debate-forum, it aint wise!

  25. America does act upon our own belief of what we think is right, and we do try to persuade or convince others to do the same (your use of the word “force” here is wrong and insulting.) So do you and so do I, and that’s exactly the right way to act. It’s completely appropriate to do what you think is right and to try to get others to do the same. The only difference between you or I in this thread and America in the world is the level of power.

    The liberation of Iraq started out based on a series of arguments: Saddam continues to shoot at our patrolling airplanes, Saddam continues to harm his own people, Saddam continues to seek WMD, Saddam hasn’t properly accounted for WMD that we know he has, Saddam has shown a willingness to work with terrorists, and so on. (Google for Bush’s state of the union address that year; he makes each of these arguments and more.) Half of one of those arguments (“we know he has them”) turned out to be wrong, and all the rest turned out to be right; the common LIE is that the wrong argument was the only one given. There are certainly other parts of the world where people need freedom, but Iraq was unique for the reasons above.

    We should set an example of nonviolence, or even antiviolence, much of the time. But we should be willing to use force when appropriate. The United States is a secular nation, and as such, our secular government should act to protect its citizens as well as our allies, even going so far as to strike at building threats before they become too dangerous. Jesus did not call the secular government of the religiously-mixed United States to “love your enemy”; He called me as an individual to love my enemy (as well as my neighbor.)

    Do you think this means I should stand by as my enemy kills my neighbor, as if that is the most loving thing I can do for both of them? Or was CS Lewis right when he said “It is … perfectly right for … a Christian soldier to kill an enemy” and “we may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating” (Mere Christianity, pages 106-7, the chapter on Forgiveness)? I grew up in a Mennonite background; I know all of the arguments for pacifism from scripture, I’m just no longer convinced they were meant to apply in the way they are often used. Love your enemy; do everything within your power to bring him to repentance and forgiveness, even suffering harm to yourself — but do not neglect your neighbor by allowing your enemy to commit great sins against him; that is not loving to either of them.

  26. Shameless bump.

    Let me ask again: how do you believe Jesus’ commands to love your neighbor AND your enemy should play out in a situation where your enemy is trying to kill your neighbor?

  27. So thought the farisees. In a direct situation it is different bumpy =)
    But hey if you americans feels like you are going to change the world by war, threats and “kill if necessary” (because of love to you neighbours!!!)… since you realy believe it is necessary (!!) Which obviously Russians, many extreme muslim-groups and many other people also feel is is then good luck with this never ending… it-is-not-our-fault-strategy, and continue killing in you so called non-imperalistic way. As for me I am going to continue seeking ways of understanding the way ‘other’ people concieve their own situation in order to make peace and build bridges of understanding. Because I dont see the world only from my own culurally point of view and believe others should do the same.

    1 Corinthians 9:19-23
    19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

    We could go on forever quoting the Bible… you will not convince me, not even by calling me names (which, my dear christian friend, you are very good at)or accuing me of lying. I stand my ground that I believe your convictions are not global and peace must become our first priority.
    Amen!

  28. Bob, you avoided my question. How do you believe Jesus’ commands to love your neighbor AND your enemy should play out in a situation where your enemy is trying to kill your neighbor? In 1 Cor 9 terms, how do I best advance the gospel in a situation where my enemy is trying to kill my neighbor?

    There are groups that wish to kill my neighbors (including my neighbors in Taiwan, Georgia, Israel, etc.), whether as a part of religious ideology, or due to greed or ambition. I believe it’s important to reach out to those groups when possible, but I also believe it’s important to bring force to bear in order to protect those who they would otherwise harm. Love, not Peace, is our first priority — and love sometimes requires us to use force to protect those who are being attacked.

    I grew up in a Mennonite (pacifist) background, which was far more important and influential on me than my American citizenship. My stance on war and peace has been developing for many years. Far from being “ethnocentric” and “stuck in my own cultural point of view”, I’ve changed my culturally-ingrained viewpoint based on serious prayer, study, discussion, and consideration. I view the question at the start of this post as absolutely fundamental; you simply cannot make progress with me while avoiding it. And you cannot make progress while, on the one hand, claiming that you try to “seek ways of understanding”, and on the other hand, dismissing my viewpoints as American-ethnocentric rather than seeking ways of understanding where I’m coming from.

Comments are closed.