You're right. Both Tel Aviv and Riyadh play us like violins

OP-ED: "Anti-Semitism and the Anti-Israel Lobby: What's so nefarious about Jews exercising their right to speech?" by Jeff Robbins, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2007, p. A15.

Of course, there's nothing wrong about Jews exercising their free right of speech, or using their money to push their agenda. It's as American as apple pie and it's how every minority/immigrant group has ever risen to express itself politically (watch the Indians right now and the gays prior).

It's also okay for foreign governments to seek influence with ours. We're the closest thing there is to world government and we own the world's largest gun, so you have to expect that or get out of the business of being the world's sole full-service superpower.

This op-ed mostly contrasts the strong Israel lobby with the also strong Saudi one, which manipulates American foreign policy just as much.

Frankly, I'm not happy with either outcome because they both conspire to keep America highly unrealistic about what real pluralism will look like in the region--namely, the liberation of the Shia (as nasty and immature as they're likely to be in the historical short-run). Riyadh and Tel Aviv both want Iran slapped down: the former wants to stay regional kingpin and the latter wants help on Iran's support to Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran, meanwhile, plays into their hands quite nicely by eschewing the reality of the Shia-Sunni fight and instead playing up the anti-Israeli/anti-US card.

So both Tel Aviv and Riyadh point to Tehran and Tehran points to Tel Aviv and Washington, who in turn return the fingers with Riyadh's additional "I told you so!" echoing in their ears. Problem is, behind Tehran stands Asia's rising energy requirements.

It's like a perfectly enclosed energy system that runs on its own forever, or the end of a John Woo shoot-em-up gangster movie where all the main characters are in a standoff holding pistols to each others' heads.

I'm just tired of it all. I'm tired of being manipulated by two powers who are willing to fight right down to the last American, and a third whose rancid authoritarianism is propped up by simply answering their mail.

We are being played for fools by all sides (including the free-riding Asians), and it strikes me as pathetic.

Comments

[JeffJ]

If we warm up to Iran, we get India but will we lose Saudis to the Chinese? Not that the Chinese military can step in right away to help Saudis the way US does, but are we trading one problem (Iran) for another (Saudis)? THis seems like a regional Iraq. Shia vs Sunni. Do you have to just let things play out and try to contain the violence? What is the optimum solution here?

[Dave Goldberg]

Tom, I don't have any fundamental disagreements with any of your points. Except, I have to say that I have yet to meet anyone supportive of Israel who would offer up any American lives solely for the purpose of going to war on behalf of Israel.

[Robert Konrath]

Oh Please, Mr. Goldberg, let's not be naive: Bill Kristol and David Brooks (and their co-religionists at AEI) will see their contributions to a possible American Iran invasion as the primary accomplishment of their lives! In earlier days, they would be expected to head the columns. Perhaps, if they WERE forced to head up the vanguard of the attack they would stop their vile cheerleading!

[Dave Goldberg]

Guys like Kristol are predisposed to military force because they believe its the only real way to solve any conflict, so they use their particular beliefs to develop the pretext that already fits their agendas and to attract support. To paraphrase Tom, it's pathetic.

Instead, I was writing about average people who happen to staunchly support countries such as Israel, but at the same time, have no sense of divided loyalties that would demand shedding American blood at the behest of another country.