Disjointed Rant on Israel

On Saturday, Mindy and I intentionally found ourselves in the middle of a protest against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. In the last two years, I have found it best for my serenity to allow the social and political happenings of the world to proceed without my comment or involvement. I generally think this theory best for me, but am not sure it fulfills my human duty. God forbid everyone deal with the unpleasantries on the world scene as I do, by sticking their head in the sand.

I have found myself having an opinion of late about the continued shoddy leadership and dangerous foreign policy currently afoot in my home country. I would like to blame George W. Bush, the neo-conservatives, and the religious right for the current lack of vision, compassion and logic in both foreign n and domestic policy. However, blame must be shared by the weak and disorganized opposition at home, a large segment of the citizenry that continues to lend blind support and refuses to ask for real answers and other Western nations, afraid to go toe-to-toe against the US on important issues.

It is easy to see how the Dixie Chicks, in London at a time of increased American stupidity and rightly-deserved foreign disdain, so easily commented on their lack of support in our Commander-in-Chief. I can also see how the uneducated masses back home that have never been more than 100 miles from a Wal-Mart could not fathom making an "unpatriotic comment" on foreign soil. [Of course, they really don't want any "unpatriotic comments" made on domestic soil either.] The ability to think critically is being bred out of the American public. This seems reinforced at school, where thinking, or doing anything else, "outside the box" is grounds for discipline. Conform, survive, borrow, and accumulate -- that is the new American Dream.

The fact is that it is easier to see the folly of America's foreign policy at a distance. The news here does not play the watered-down, gutless sound bites and one-sided rationalizations for American action that the media in the US must, or else be branded unpatriotic and "liberal." In international matters, the news here tends to report the facts. [Though on domestic matters, they too side-step facts and twist stories. ] Also, the BBC is easy to find and it tends to report the actual goings-on as opposed to the "pro-America" spin that we see from the major US networks (not to mention FoxNews, the shirtless pool boy of the Neo-Conservatives and religious righties).

I remain dumbstruck that the American public does not demand an honest debate of the issues involved in the continuation and seeming escalation of the war of terror -- especially in light of the glaring folly of the War, the worldwide political fallout caused by it, the vacillating reasons given since its inception, and the very real possibility that we are being drug into yet another war in Lebanon, which 99% of the American public don't know the first thing about. Given the various offensives and defensives occurring on so many fronts, we seems hell-bent on creating our own World War III. Surely an honest debate is not too much to ask for with such weighty stakes. I don't mean the kind occurring in Washington, where the plastic puppets shriek their prepared scripts at an empty chamber. I mean a real honest-to-God debate.

Why do debates only occur at election time. I say put four to five of the key players (Bush to be included) in front of an audience of veracious, educated constituents during primetime. Bush's people would never go for it because it would show what an absolute idiot and floundering, bumbling figurehead he truly is. Why is the President immune from extemporaneous debate once elected? There are those that say he is subjected to such a going-over by the White House Press Corps, but is he really? These people are either his friends or else that are disinvited to the slumber party. If one of these press officials really called the leadership on the carpet and exposed just how inept our President is (especially without a talking head nearby), he would be evicted from the Press Corp. and, as such, lose his job. Why would he ask the "tough question?" Lobbed softballs are much safer. I want Tony Snow and George W. Bush to dread going into the White House Press Room. I want them to get nauseated and maybe even throw-up a little at the thought of being grilled and having to defend every minute facet of the administration's rationale. That is a free press and that is democracy.

Islamists are again the target of George W. Bush's "War on Terror." No wonder so many Islamists hate the United States. They have earned the right by putting up with its single-minded, often bigoted and always short-sighted bullying. I note that the US is rushing a shipment of laser-guided bombs to Israel for its use against Hezbollah -- or rather against the Lebanese Army and Lebanese civilians, which seem to be dying in equal measure to Hezbollah at the hands of the Israeli army. Once again the US is supplying weapons to a nation without the faintest idea how they will be used. Hell, they might be used against US troops, just as the arms we supplied to the USSR, Iran, and Iraq have been. Israel does not have the best human rights record, especially on its western and southern fronts (West Bank and Gaza), where the surplus of our arms shipments will likely be put to use.

Bush and his cronies have said repeatedly that Israel has the right to protect itself. It seems that this "right" does not apply to Lebanon. One of the pre-invasion exit strategies that Israel is proposing (at least it has one) would have a "Free Zone" cleared along the border to be secured from Hezbollah by the Lebanese Army. It is clear this strategy is being advanced solely to curry political favor with the West, especially the US. If Israel really wanted an alliance with the Lebanese Army against Hezbollah, it would not be bombing the hell out of Lebanese Army, destroying its ability to occupy a "free zone" or to resist Hezbollah.

I have seen no mention of UN Resolution 425 and the fact that it is once again being violated. We've been through this before in 1978 and it took 22 years to resolve. Does the American public really have the stamina?

Lest we wonder why Bush supports Israel, we need look no further than his support base: the evangelical Christian. Evangelical Christians support Israel for a number of fallacious reasons, not the least of which, I'm sure, is the hope that they will be able to convert Israeli Jews into Christians. Evangelical Christians have weighed in on the recent conflict and sent "lobbyists" to Washington, with one clear message: God wants us to support Israel. One of the most vocal Christian supporters of Israel is Rev. John Hagee of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. It would be interesting to know how much Rev. Hagee and his congregants have contributed to George W. Bush, the Republican Party and local Republican candidates. Bush has sold his soul to the religious zealots on the right and is now being used in their most un-Christian campaigns both at home and abroad.