Without Support, What Happens to Israel?

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Photo Credit: AP by Mohammed Zaatari - Daylife
10 hours ago: Palestinian boys hold the Quran, Islam's holy book, as they wear fake explosives belts during a rally called by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad groups to protest against the Israeli offensive on the Gaza strip, in the Ein el-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp near the southern port city of Sidon, Lebanon, Friday, Jan. 2, 2009. Israel showed no sign of slowing a blistering seven-day offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers, destroying homes of more than a dozen of the group's operatives Friday and bombing one of its mosques a day after a deadly strike killed a prominent Hamas figure.

Glen Greenwald at Salon is mulling over the "oddities" of a Rasumssen poll that shows Americans "closely divided" on Israel's retaliation for Gaza aggressions.

(44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin (31-55%). By stark contrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).

(emphasis in red is mine)

He laments that Democrat leadership is in lockstep with Republican leadership, on the side of Israel, while leaving "one half of the citizenry without no real voice." He believes the policy on Israel is the ONLY "position where:"

(a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but...

(b) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)?

Does that happen with any other issue?

Well, yes it does. How about drilling and energy independence, which Americans overwhelmingly support but Democrat leadership eschews? How about bailouts which Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of but Democrat leadership has decided to ram through, one way or the other. How about federal tax increases, which Americans overwhelmingly and vehemently do not want, but Democrats in Congress are hell-bent to enact. How about illegal immigration and amnesty, which Americans are solidly against, but Democrats in Congress are willing to sneak legislation into Bills that no one takes the time to read, to do the bidding of their illegal constituents?

I'll point out that we do not get to vote on the above issues, and polls are often willingly fraudulent. So you can call me wrong on the issues, but the world, as Greenwald claims, doesn't vote either. If the people had a voice, the world would be astonished at the conservative and freedom-loving and freedom-protecting opinions around the globe. Need I mention that the voices that make it to print are often the voices of the media.

Greenwald offers links to these world opinions, but to be sure, he ignores the guarded and middle of the road voices:

From Europe, they warned of "provoking a humanitarian crises," and the author characterized the warning as "sharp." The PM of Finland demanded the release of Israel's recently abducted soldier and the 64 Hamas parliamentarians arrested by Israeli troops AND he "insisted that Palestinians end the shelling of Israeli territory from within the Gaza Strip." An EU spokesman condemned the "disproportionate use of force by Israel, but the truth is, the EU voted against the UN Human Rights Council on sending an investigative team to look into alleged violations by Israel.

Now here's a real gem:

The criticisms of Israel came as a poll showed that four out of five Israelis want their government to assassinate Hamas leaders to end the Gaza crisis.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Does any country in the EU have a next door neighbor plotting to eliminate them?

In the Asian link, with the Islamic Republic News Agency reporting,"China is shocked by the human tragedy," in Gaza. This should be one of the "oddities" Greenwald is addressing, but he prefers to blast the U.S. for supporting an ally and the Middle East's only democracy.

If China can be "shocked" by "human" tragedies of any kind, it would be only the happy event of their own dictators being called to task. Did I mention that China was meeting with Iran when the condemnation was issued, and that China wants Iran to solve these "regional" problems? Could Greenwald venture a guess as to how Iran would handle Israel?

The link to the Middle East opinions is certainly one Greenwald could give weight to, right? It tells us that Muslim nations are "angry." South Africa is "gravely concerned." South Africa - a country where rumors are high that genocide is escalating, and will escalate, upon Nelson Mandela's death - with Jews already high on the hunt list.

Iranians are protesting and chanting and marching with signs:

Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth and We should all rise and destroy Israel.

Egypt has their protesters, but government statements are tepid, as are statements out of Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Hamas is a bully whose shenanigans they could do well without.

"David Axelrod, a top aide to Barack Obama, told CBS television the US president-elect was committed to achieving peace in the Middle East." That's a relief. Can't wait to hear his plan. Obama will not comment, because, of course, we can only have one President at a time, but Bush has put his position on record, over and over. Here's a quote from the same Middle East link, from a Bush spokesman:

The outgoing Bush administration blamed Hamas "thugs" for provoking the offensive by firing rockets into Israel from Gaza.

Our next President has a microphone anytime he wants it. For what reason would he not immediately condemn Hamas?

As Greenwald was gratified to claim Israeli condemnations by the Europe, he failed to mention at the least, this exception: German Chancellor Angela Merkel "blamed Hamas," and agreed that responsibility "clearly and exclusively lies with Hamas."

Greenwald muses whether or not Israel's security is "enhanced or undermined" by the "attack" on Gaza and whether "the 40-year-old Israeli occupation," among other events should "bear more of the blame."

American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it's often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute....

Even for those Americans who...want endlessly to fixate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, who care deeply and passionately about whether the Israelis or the Palestinians control this or that West Bank hill or village and want to spend the rest of their days arguing about who did what to whom in 1948 and 1967, what possible interests do Americans generally have in any of that...

Ignoring and rewriting history is the straightest path to legitimizing injustice, and Greenwald gives it his best shot. If historical events, such as the League of Nations' clear mandate for land for Israel, is not important, then what is? If we continue to ignore that much of Israel's land was stripped away to appease influential Arabs, then we can ignore anything. If we refuse to acknowledge that Israel has occupied these lands, continuously, from "time immemorial," and not expect and demand that their neighbors civilly accept the reality of Israeli nationhood, then what good to the world are free nation's everywhere?

If the free world cuts off funds to Israel, as Greenwald believes should happen; and if the free world leaves Israel waging this battle alone, then what happens to Israel? I don't doubt for a minute that Israel is capable of taking care of business, but for how long? Who asks this question? What happens to Israel?

Can a Westerner, and most importantly, an American, believe that Israel should cease to exist? Without U.S. support and the support of other free countries, she cannot exist where she is today. And that's the goal of the Muslim world.

"Just as was true for Israel's bombing of Lebanon, it's American bombs that -- with the whole world watching -- are blowing up children and mosques...."

Where is Greenwald's concern about atrocities in the name of Allah?

The Iranian U.S. embassy hostages, double digit American kidnappings in Lebanon, a Hizbullah suicide bomber attack at the Beirut Embassy, the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, another Embassy bombing in Kuwait, again another in Beirut, Hizbullah hijacking a Kuwait flight and killing Americans, Hizbullah hijacking a TWA flight and killing a U.S. Navyman - 17 days of sheer terror for the passengers, the PLO murdering Leo Klingerhofer aboard the Achille Lauro, another TWA flight bombed just as the plane landed in Athens, Greece, the Pan Am Lockerie flight - killing 270, the 1989 World Trade Center car bomb, the Hizbullah bombing of the the U.S. military complex in Riyadh, bombings of embassies in Nairobe and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - 223 dead, and injuring over 4000, the U.S.Cole, and September 11, 2001.

Nasrallah's atrocities against his own, Hamas atrocities against their own, al-Qaeda atrocities against their own, Iran's atrocities against their own, Islamic fathers' atrocities against their wives and daughters in the U.S.

There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of killings in the name of Allah. You and I would be dead now, if Islamic extremists had their way. What does Greenwald have to say about this? Oh yes, I remember: if other than an Islamic population had not dared put foot on their sacred ground...infidels would not be an enemy.

...should [the U.S.] continue to play such an active, one-sided role in this dispute.

So what would the world have Israel do? Any nation on earth...if in Israel's place, what would they do?