Time and again, the United Nations, rather than disavowing, condemning, or defeating genocide, has embraced those very countries that happen to be its worst perpetrators.

One of McCain’s best ideas this election season has been the creation of a League of Democracies.

I am not opposed to Wilsonian Multilateralism (or Clintonian for that matter). However, I do disagree with any nation’s foolish reliance on a corrupt organization that protects genocide while denouncing fledgling democracies. The hypocrisy is staggering.

I’m also in favor of regime change when possible and necessary, and with humanitarian intervention when the stakes are high enough. I do believe government’s such as Sudan under Omar Bashir should be toppled for the greater good. Does this mean we need to invest years and billions of dollars in future nation building as we are now in Iraq? It’s hard to say. Certainly international, bi-partisan cooperation could help hasten efforts in places such as Darfur where the question of saving human life is far more urgent than any question of re-building. This does not, however, mean that we should enter countries without international support or proper planning. The first three years in Iraq should be enough of a precautionary tale. The UN, however, is not an international body willing to act in any cohesive or meaningful way.

Could we blend some version of practical multilateralism with the Bush Doctrine? It seems less and less likely that either way is plausible without some help from the other.

An American Century?

America is in the unique position of leadership under such a multilateral foreign policy. McCain’s League of Democracies may be an ideal vehicle for this hybrid of American power and international cooperation. It is my hope that even if McCain loses–and I believe he will lose at this point–that Barack Obama and McCain put their differences aside to work toward achieving this foreign policy. Bi-partisanship will be necessary in the coming years.

The Bush administration entered the White House intent upon a far less interventionist policy than the Clinton administration–indeed, Bush came across far less hawkish than Gore in the 2000 election, disavowing regime change and nation building. However, the events of 9/11, the fear of WMD’s in Iraq, and the overall growing international tension forced the Bush administration into a foreign policy that they did not initially plan. Indeed, Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives used this to their advantage, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others were more of the Realist variety, reluctant to fully embrace the hawkish policies that the neocons advocated.

This combination of neoconservative unilateralism and more classically conservative distrust of international powers and institutions led to a United States foreign policy that was anything but multilateralist, and oftentimes unsure of the direction it wanted to move. This goes deeper than the obvious disagreements between a Powell State Department and the more hawkish DOD. Indeed, even during the Rice years, State has been more moderate in its approach to foreign affairs.

The “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq was, and is, a farce save for Britain. This is not to diminish the bravery of the token troops sent from Poland, Italy, Georgia and the other Coalition nations, but in all seriousness, should America withdraw, these troops would be utterly useless. Even the NATO operation in Afghanistan has been rather more a unilateralist approach than it ought to be, with only the Danish and the British contributing much of anything at all to the effort.

Globalization and Multilateralism

It is my hope that whoever becomes President will continue to push a strong foreign policy agenda, especially against the rogue nations Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea (not to mention Russia, China…the list goes on). I also hope that they eschew the narrow unilateralism of the Bush years in favor of a more practical multilateralist approach.

This will take very rigorous diplomacy on America’s part, especially since America has reached new lows of unpopularity and mistrust around the world. Ironically, this has occurred simultaneously with the election of some of the most pro-US European leaders to take office in years. It is a promising, ironic, and dangerous world we entrust to the next American President.

Our allies can live up to that title more in the coming years, as can America, and we can do more to convince other democracies that this war against radicalism, proliferation of nuclear arms, and terror is one that we all must face together. It is a struggle that we cannot face alone, and that our allies cannot wish away. America should lead, but it should not leave behind the rest of the free world. Globalization has changed the game. In a world in which economies are inextricably bound to one another, the question can never only be one of national security–it is international security that must be achieved.

If the United Nations cannot bring this about, effectively abandoning its mission, and choses instead to cater to the tyrants and demagogues rather than uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, then America must find a new way to shore up its international support. We cannot go it alone for another eight years, nor can we fall victim to the easy road of moral relativity, tolerating the dangerously intolerant.

The time has come to throw out both options: futile international efforts and cowboy politics, and to seek out new ways to create a safer, more peaceful world, whoever our next President may be.

~cross-posted at <a href=”http://neoconstant.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/16/2008268-multilateralism-and-the-bush-doctrine”>Newsvine.</a>

“Trust but verify.” Those were the watchwords of President Ronald Reagan when he embarked upon the historic series of negotiations with the Soviet Union that would culminate with the START I Treaty designed to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons deployed by the United States and Soviet Union. Today a tempest in a teapot has ensued over President Bush’s remarks before the Israeli Knesset comparing negotiations with hostile foreign dictators as tantamount to Neville Chamberlain’s alleged “appeasement” of Adolph Hitler at Munich in 1938. (more…)

The dictionary definition of ‘to assume’ is defined as ‘to take for granted or without proof; to suppose; to postulate’. It is a natural human trait which has benefited our species but one that has also pitched us into numerous wars and hatreds throughout the various millennia. Everyone has assumptions about this and that, from the meditating Buddhist monk in Vietnam to the Jamaican family enjoying the sun on the beaches in Montego Bay. However, the dangers appear when these assumptions lead to the appearance of bigotry, malevolence and worst of all, loss of life. Unfortunately, the subject people of this essay have probably suffered worse than any other from the corruptive results of wild assertions - those people being the Jews.

Richard Littlejohn, the British broadcaster and journalist, recently noted a peculiar case of assumption here in Britain in his Channel 4 documentary, ‘The War on Britain’s Jews?’. When telling dinner guests, fellow journalists and politicians that he strongly supported Israel, the first question they always asked in return was, ‘Are you Jewish?’ I’ve noticed the very same thing. Why does one have to be Jewish or an Evangelical Christian to back Israel? Usually the second and third questions involve a combination of inquiries as to whether I am a Neo Conservative and/or Islamaphobic. I admit, I am exaggerating a little. It depends what company I am in and usually their political persuasions which leads to a very interesting phenomenon. It is certainly no exaggeration, I’m disappointed to say, that the majority of Left leaning individuals I come across do ask these questions.

The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the various reasons why I respect, admire and support the State of Israel. Before I bring my introduction to a close, I think it wise to state my connections with Israel and Judaism, in case of the likely event interested readers will ‘assume’ I am biased because of heritage or religion. Firstly, I am not Jewish and as far as I know have no Jewish ancestry within the last two centuries. Secondly, I am not Israeli, I am British. I’ve never even set foot in Israel. Thirdly, I am non-religious. I’m an atheist who has medium to little interest in the religion of Judaism, let alone any regard for Evangelical Christianity. Fourth and finally, I consider myself to be on the centre-left of the political spectrum which means I’m certainly not a Neo-Con.

The Underdog

The Social Anthropologist Kate Fox provided a detailed and interesting commentary on a certain English trait in her book, ‘Watching the English’. She wrote ‘Those who are truly, culturally ‘English’ - whatever their race or country of origin - can be distinguished by their automatic, instinctive inclination to cheer for the underdog’ (p247). Perhaps she and I are being rather big headed in assuming the Anglo-Saxon world is the only arena for such a occurrence, I’m sure it’s not but it does lead on to another reason of mine for supporting Israel and will probably lead to a few people choking on their coffee. I see Israel as the underdog, not the Palestinians.

There are between 1.3 and 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, that’s about one fifth of the total population. I do not feel it is disingenuous to proclaim that the majority of the Muslim World are at best, mildly antagonistic and at worst, openly belligerent towards the Jewish State. Then you have European anti-Semitism which is particularly at home in the Eastern countries such as Poland, the Ukraine and Russia. Russia as a larger world player has been fastidious in its various anti-Israeli initiatives, both inside and outside of the UN, over the past decades. In the Americas there are anti-Israeli initiatives and rhetoric, especially surprisingly, from the United States. Well known commentators, television personalities and anti-Israelis such as Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Noam Chomsky and Susan Sarandon, whilst in no way politically influential, do hold vast swathes of ordinary Americans under their pseudo intellectual charms. In Britain, the likes of the Respect politician George Galloway, London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Sayeeda Warsi, the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, hold their own firebrand views of Israeli defensive policies which, like in America, greatly influence certain sections of British society.

This bias against Israel isn’t only confined to a few famous instigators but also parts of the media. I will take Britain as my example. Newspapers, especially The Guardian and The Independent, regularly print articles and news stories that cross the line between fact and fiction, leaving out vital information and only mentioning that which places Israel in a bad light. Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for the latter newspaper is notorious for his hatred of the Jewish State and, in his own words, the ‘International Zionist Lobby’. On television, the Channel 4 broadcasters have as good as swallowed Hamas propaganda word for word; it being very rare and incredibly surprising when a positive line is unravelled about Jerusalem politics. However, the most shocking I save for last, that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. ‘Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest’ it says in their ‘Purpose and Values’ section but is it?

No, certainly not when it comes to Israel at any rate. Take for instance, the recently released BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston. When first captured, the Palestinian Authority Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti stated, ‘We are apposed to the kidnapping of foreign journalists who serve the Palestinian cause’. The Beeb did not reply nor more importantly rebut, neither has Johnston since his release. In another case, Fayad Abu Shamala, another BBC Gaza correspondent, told a Hamas rally that ‘journalists and media organisations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.’ What was the BBC’s response? This was their response, ‘Fayad’s remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC’. There are literally hundreds of examples I could use of the British Press and its bias against Israel which leads to the conclusion that the Palestinians and Muslim world in general are certainly winning the war of words. Israel is the underdog and the next chapter provides even more reasons why.

Myths and Lies

The majority of British people are not anti-Semitic and what is often construed as so is in fact idle acceptance of misinformation and lack of knowledge about the region and its history. For the genuine anti-Semites (edited), no amount of reasoning, facts and learning will recede their hatred.

So what are the common assumptions and myths that people in Britain hold to be true about Israel, Zionism and the Jews but which are in fact lies? Why is this propaganda especially absorbed by the Left that once fought shoulder to shoulder with the Jews against the Fascists of Oswald Mosley in 1936, but who now side with Hamas and Hezbollah? The latter question deserves an essay of its own and that it shall receive but part of the answer lies in the support of the perceived underdog as noted in the preceding chapter, which in itself is a noble engagement, but one that can also be severely misplaced.

One of the major assumptions is that Israel is an Apartheid State similar to that of South Africa a few decades ago, where Israeli Arabs fair no better than did the black South Africans. This is a myth, a complete fabrication of the truth. Whilst some Arabs in Israel do suffer from discrimination, which is of course abhorrent, it is in no way similar to Apartheid. Arab citizens of the Jewish State can vote, participate in the government (there are a number of Arab Knesset politicians), they can own and buy land, are protected against discrimination in the workplace and have a better standard of living, education and healthcare than anywhere else in the Arab World. The blacks of South Africa had none of the above. Israeli Arabs can even serve in the Israeli Armed Forces.

Another assumption is that the ‘Wall’ separating Israel from Palestine is a racist barrier and a Zionist attempt to steal more land. Firstly, only 5% of the entire length of the barrier is actually a wall, the rest is wire fence and add to the previous fact, the concrete walls are temporary, easily removable and with no permanent foundations. Why is the barrier necessary? Because of Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians in buses, nightclubs, restaurants, shops and cafés. In 2002, before the security barrier, 451 Israelis died in terrorist attacks whereas in 2006, when much of the security barrier was in place, 30 Israelis were killed. (Statistics) If any justification is needed for this security fence/wall/barrier, whatever you want to call it, then these startling figures are surely it. Secondly, if it was a barrier based on race then there would be no Arabs living in Israel nor would Arabs be allowed access, although under tight security control which is understandable, into Israel to work, visit relatives and cross from the West Bank to Gaza and vice-versa like they do.

A third major assumption is that Israelis are doing to the Palestinian Arabs what Hitler did to the Jews in the Holocaust. This is definitely the most sickening and outrageous slandering of Israel that possibly exists, at least in Western circles. There are no gas chambers in Israel or the disputed territories, nor are there concentration camps, cruel medical experiment laboratories, ghettoes or forced starvation of Arabs by the Israeli military. Where are the millions of dead Arabs if the Jewish State is carrying out a Nazi-like massacre? George Galloway and German Bishop Hanke are still convinced: the latter saying on a visit to the West Bank in March 2007, ‘This morning we saw pictures of the bestial Warsaw Ghetto at Yad Vashem, and in the evening we were in the ghetto of Ramallah’. Such delusions are unfortunately common place but these people should ask some questions. Were the Jews in Europe under the Nazis provided with hospital treatment? The Palestinians are, even those who tried to blow up Israelis in failed suicide attacks. Small Arab children are treated in life saving operations and often get the best treatment available in the whole of the Middle East. Another question, if the Israelis wanted to eradicate the Palestinians, why would they continue providing electricity and water supplies to the Gaza Strip despite the numerous rockets and walking bombs originating from this small area? The accusations, in my view, are thoroughly baseless and despicable.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of myths and lies spread about Israel worldwide, largely as the result of Arab media propaganda and the notorious Russian conspiracy theory, ‘The protocols of the Elders of Zion’, which incidentally is widely available in Islamic bookshops across Britain, along with the Arabic translation of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’. The Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel will be explored in further detail in the next chapter.

Let me first say this. I am not intending to go into the fascinating history of Israel and Zionism in this particular essay as that would indeed make a book, of which there are already many. I can recommend one specifically, which I’ve read myself, that interested readers can order online and that is ‘A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time’ by Howard M. Sachar.

Islamic Enmity

“The Hour (of the Last Judgment) will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”
Hadith - Volume 4, Book 52, No’ 177; Narrated by Abu Huraira.

From the days of Mohammed in the 7th Century AD to those of the modern age, Islam has been hostile to the Jews. The Jewish tribes, such as the Banu Qaynuqa, were the first to incur the Prophet’s wrath by refusing to submit to the young and militarily successful religion. A Jewish poet, K’ab bin Al-Ashraf also fell victim to Mohammed’s anger due to a succession of supposed insults. ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Mohammed asked his followers (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, book 17, no.4436). The poet was later killed. The ramifications of which still affect us today, for example, last year in the Danish cartoon controversy, the slaying of Theo Van Gogh and also the avoidance of using the words ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorism’ in the same sentence by frightened British politicians, human rights groups, media heads and writers like Karen Armstrong.

The Koran is full of commands to kill Jews but Islamic apologists constantly refer to one verse, ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion …’ (Koran 2:256) which in their eyes clears the Muslim Holy Book of any serious guilt. Unfortunately the rules of abrogation (annulment) are not widely known to the Western World. Abrogation is when verses written later replace earlier verses if they conflict with one another. The suras of the Koran are not arranged chronologically but according to length, in descending order. Therefore it is vitally important to know which are the ‘Meccan’ and which are the ‘Medinan’ verses. The last quote is unfortunately from the Meccan period of time when Islam was against the proverbial ropes and did not have the means to wage war. Later, when Islam grew stronger, this would change as would the nature of Mohammed’s words.

‘None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?’
(Koran 2:106)

If you don’t believe my words, then read the widely circulated lectures of the respected Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid on the subject.

Of course I am not saying all Muslims hate Jews, that would be a ridiculous thing to say. There are numerous partnerships and groups where Muslims and Jews, along with other religions, come together in art, culture, play and most importantly, peace initiatives. What I am saying however, is that there is a foundation in the Islamic religion for Jew hatred and that those who invoke the killing of Jews to be an Islamic duty, are not in fact misguided but actually correctly following the Koran. Thankfully the majority of Muslims do not intensively study their Holy Book, rather like the majority of Christians don’t their Bible. One can see nevertheless, that hatred of Israel is not purely to do with the supposed invasion and occupation of Arab-Muslim land but goes much deeper and further back into history.

The major problem that results from this Muslim hostility towards the Jews is the modern day media propaganda that is burning furiously across the Islamic world. Anti-Jewish cartoons, media distortions, films and even children’s television programmes incorporate bigoted portrayals of the Jewish blood libel and Zionist world domination myths. Astonishingly, Europeans and Americans have swallowed the Middle East lies about Jews and Israel, whether intentionally or not and thus the mass misinformation phenomenon has spread across Left-Wing circles on all continents. Former American president Jimmy Carter is a prime example with his recent book, ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’.

Democracy and Growth

Israel is a parliamentary democracy; the only one in the Middle East. Jerusalem is its capital. What is now Israel was once an Ottoman backwater of desert, swamps and basic farmlands but has since developed into one of the most advanced nations on the planet. All of this through the solid hard work, bravery and persistence of the early Zionist settlers and the many generations that followed them right up to the present day. Tens of thousands of Jews fled from Pogroms in Eastern Europe, the Arab World, and infamously the Holocaust, to settle in what would become Israel. Through a mixture of need, religious devotion and a desire for national identity and self-reliance/defence, they built and developed a proud, strong and extraordinary little country on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.

Nowadays Israel can lay claim to a myriad of achievements and developments that benefit not only its own people but the whole world. This small nation of around 7 million people has advanced science, technology, literature, culture and politics to new levels whilst all the time being under attack from its larger neighbours. Israeli medical engineering has saved and improved millions of lives across the globe with inventions such as: stem-cell technology to regenerate heart tissue; the first fully computerised, radiation-less, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer; the first ingestible video camera that’s so small it fits in a pill, used to discover possible cancers in the intestines; an Ex-Press shunt that provides relief to glaucoma sufferers; a device which directly helps the heart pump blood; a ‘bone glue’ that will heal bones and joints affected by disease and for one final example, a device which restores the use of paralysed hands, providing hope to many victims of strokes and spinal injuries. There are many, many more Israeli inventions connected with science that have helped people from all countries, including the disputed territories.

Most of the latest technology in mobile phones was developed in Israel as was computer voice mail. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world; the third highest rate of entrepreneurship in the world; more museums per capita than any other country in the world; the second highest per capita of books in the world and has been instrumental in designing high tech security systems at airports to prevent bombs getting on board aeroplanes. Again, like with the medical innovations, there are many, many more technological advances originating from Israel.

All of the above plus more and people still hate Israel, excuse the Palestinian suicide attacks, call for boycotts, demand Israel to disband and worst of all, work actively to undermine the most culturally, socially, scientifically and politically advanced nation in the whole of the Middle East.. I can only ask at this point, what the hell have Israel’s neighbours given to the world in the last century, two centuries, three centuries even? Where have the development of human rights been in the Islamic world? Where have the countless genuine peace initiatives been in the Arab World? The harsh questions needed to be asked of those who attack Israel are a hundredfold.

Conclusions

I don’t believe there has been a country in modern history so reviled and misunderstood as Israel is today. It is a nation that has fought unflinchingly for its survival from the very first day of its conception but has nevertheless overcome every obstacle, bullet and bomb that its enemies have thrown against it. The Arabs have waged or threatened war numerous times over the past decades from 1948 through to 1967 and on to 1973 and beyond. Europeans who share the values and ideals of Jews worldwide have gone from enthusiastic support to an attitude of aggressive suspicion and non-violent derogation, especially on the Left. Centuries old falsities about the Jewish people have been dragged from the swamps of history and subsequently been renamed ‘Anti-Zionism’. Over half a century after the Holocaust, a new label has been found in which to hide their prejudices and has been stamped with approval and justification by the mass anti-Semitic hysteria emanating from the Islamic World. Newspaper journalists, peace campaigners and even politicians proclaim with gusto that, ‘Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism’, before parading conceited smiles and swaggering strides. Yet few ask in return, how can disagreement and outright hostility towards the existence of a successful, democratic, peace seeking and established nation, that happens to be the only Jewish one of its kind, be anything other than anti-Semitism? Remember, ‘Zionism’ in its basic terms is support for a Jewish nation state.

In the 21st Century, Israel faces yet more threats, especially from Iran and its proxies, Syria and Hezbollah. The almost certain threat of Persian nuclear weapons is growing, week by week, as peace protestors in London, Washington DC and Paris call on their governments to refrain from bombing Iranian nuclear sites and instead cut ties with ’the Zionist entity’. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas, a wing of the worldwide ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is actively attacking Israeli towns such as Sderot causing few casualties but nonetheless dreadful mental and emotional trauma.

Please don’t mistake my purpose here, I don’t hold up Israel as the ideal nation state that all others should emulate, I don’t think it is, like I don’t think the United States or even the United Kingdom are. I couldn’t name or even know if that apotheosis of nationhood actually exists. There are negatives to Israeli society and policies that I dislike and question, such as the violent actions of some of the Ultra-Orthodox community against Palestinians, the governmental corruption and the terrible road safety statistics. Despite the minus points however, Israel is in my view, a brave, vastly misunderstood and much hated (unwarranted) living and breathing embodiment of democracy and liberty fighting tyranny and religious despotism. It’s a nation that needs our support, our good will, our understanding and our help because if we refuse, we are in fact permitting large chunks of our own values and ideals of freedom be torn apart by Islamic absolutism. We in Europe, America and the rest of the democratic world are not idle spectators to this ‘regional’ confrontation between Israel and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, as it so often might seem; we are on the very same front line! From the Philippines to southern Russia and from the Parisian suburbs to Sudan and Nigeria there lies the same inherent danger that is facing us all, that of Islamic terrorism.

The Palestinians are suffering, there is no doubt about that. However the blame for their horror is not to be put solely or even mostly, at the feet of the Jewish State. Countless times Israel has offered them peace and their statehood but each time their leaders have refused. With all my heart, I truly believe Israel is seeking genuine peace and friendship with its Arab neighbours which would be overwhelmingly beneficial to both sets of people. What has been done in Israel, regarding technology, human rights, living standards and wealth, can also, if peace and reconciliation is achieved, be had in Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. I ask my fellow countrymen and women why they morally attack that which is defending itself against tyranny and the suppression of human freedom, in order to champion the rights of those who bring their suffering upon themselves? Until we step away and rationalize the situation and put our support behind the true victim which fights the very same battle we are fighting, then we will remain in the downward spiral that is sucking away our morality, democracy, freedoms and indeed, our very existence.

I’m proud to call myself a friend of Israel.

~read more at Beaman’s World.