Second Guessing Israel
Sarah Palin says we shouldn’t “second-guess” Israel’s actions:
The Republican VP nominee recently said that she would never “second guess Israel if that country decided to attack Iran.” Speaking with Katie Couric of CBS News, she stood by that quote.
“We shouldn’t second guess Israel’s security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one,” she said. “Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn’t second guess their efforts.”
The Alaska governor said the United States should be free to relay its rights our concerns, but “we don’t have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth,” said Palin. “It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are.”
Emphasis mine. Can it really be reduced to a matter of good guys against bad guys? I am more than a little nervous about the prospect of Israel getting a free pass in its international conduct today because of the Holocaust. It seems here that Palin is advocating for the “Bush doctrine” of preventative war. Israel’s “opportunity and ability to protect itself” in the context would come in the form of an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Should the US support an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program? Some will argue so, but I am disinclined, since Israel’s own nuclear weapons program is an open secret. Still, Iran’s current president has done more than his fair share of threatening Israel, and the recent launches of long-range missiles are disconcerting. That being said, surely there is room for second-guessing, no matter which nations are involved. As a matter of fact, the US protested when Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 (and this was when Ronald Reagan was in office). Even the US under a Republican president has a history of second-guessing Israel’s military actions. So Palin here espouses a more extreme position than many in US politics.
A couple of random thoughts on this topic:
(1) Most American Christians (and Jews!) support the Israeli government far more than most Israelis do. I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Israel, and I’ve never heard any Israeli express the sort of uncritical support for their government than I’ve heard from many Christians.
(2) It’s an interesting fact — not sure what to do with it — that Arab countries aren’t terribly worried about the fact that Israel possesses nuclear weapons — but they’re very worried about the possibility that Iran might. This does indicate something about how the world community anticipates Israel will behave vs. how the world community anticipates Iran will behave.
Ken Smith
29 Sep 08 at 10:56 pm
I find the following juxtaposition interesting:
1) Iran’s fundamentalist Muslim leadership are supposed to be willing to do anything to get rid of Israel.
2) Iran’s fundamentalist Muslim leader has forbidden the use of nuclear weapons.
So, which will win out? The desire to “wipe Israel off the map,” or compliance with the Supreme Leader’s command?
N. Dan Smith
30 Sep 08 at 12:32 am