Olmert, Israel, Palestine and the US.

Remove all ads!

Israeli soon-to-be ex-prime minister Ehud Olmert has made a very interesting statement in an interview:

That is very interesting. Olmert has a past of being utterly disinterested in the fates of the 'others', the Palestinians. And now this change of heart. Why so late? It is unfortunate that he did not experience this 'conversion' earlier, like when he entered office.

What is most remarkable is that he speaks of the Israelis as a people who have lost a sense of proportion about themselves. I think he is absolutely correct in saying this. Too many things, too many excesses, in Israel and Israeli conduct cannot satisfactorily be explained by any other explanation. At the heart of Olmert's remarks lies the question of what Zionism is about: About a doctrine that calls for exclusively implementing Israeli group interests in the Holy Land, necessarily at the expense of the 'others'. There is an obvious supremacist aspect to it as well.

Now when he speaks of loss of a sense of proportion on the Israeli's part, no matter what the Palestinians do, what does that say about those people in the US who unconditionally and uncritically support Israel in whatever it does? Unconditionally and uncritically support Israeli politicians whose loss of a sense of proportion is manifest in their policies? Like those Israeli right-wingers who in the US are represented in AIPAC and JINSA and try to outhawk each other. Or the bible thumping crowd with folks like John Hagee who swoon in delight of everything that appears to promise bringing forth Armageddon a day earlier - some of whom go so far as trying to do their part to make the prophecy come true.

Think of people like Sarah Palin who want to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Why? Because in the Bible it is the capitol of Israel? Does the Bible define US policy in the Middle East? In what way? Reporters ought to ask her that. She does not offer an explanation on that point. It would be interesting to learn why she favours such a move. The question of whether she's a fundamentalist nutcase is an important one.

The interesting question is whether support for Israel as envisioned by folks like Hagee or Palin and the AIPAC/ JINSA crowd is really helping Israel. There is no question about the point that the US and Israel have close and friendly relations. It is not about changing that. It is about this: If US support enables and perpetuates policies that have no sense of proportion, then US support (with generous aid, deliberate non-pressure and carte blanché, as manifest in Bush's hands-off approach) is actually hurting a friend. Olmert's remark offers an opportunity to reflect about Israel, Israeli politics and US the question and form of US support.

 

I find I strongly disagree with your assessment of the fundamentalist movements among Christians and Jews in this post (you seem to imply that they are trying to bring about the wars described in Revelation, not give Israel a red cow), but I find I strongly agree with this bit:

 

I already qualified my statement when I said 'some even going so far'. More to that point: With the fundamentalist movement I generally refer to the Hagee crowd. I readily concede that there are certainly a lot of evangelicals and even fundamentalists who do decidedly not share (in that I include you, NOG) Hagee's understanding of the Book of Genesis, Chapter 12, Verse 1-3:

To put it tongue in cheek, in America there is something I want to call "Apocalypse Politics". That includes unswerving support for Israel. Israel is seen as ordained by God, a view held by 44% of Americans, according to a 2003 Pew Research survey. The evangelical Christian Zionist movement goes further, and sees in Israel 'a fulfilment of the biblical prophecy about the second coming of Jesus,' a belief shared by 36% of Americans in the Pew research.

The latter view in its consequent application looks about like this: a Red State fundamentalist cattle breeder planning to ship ritual cows to right-wing Israeli religious extremists to conduct animal sacrifices in the location of a major Islamic sanctuary... If that sounds like trouble that's because it is just that.

Or as put in Hagee's words from the inaugural event for CUFI on July 19th, 2006 in Washington, spoken in the presence of the Israeli ambassador and after a recorded welcome of president Bush (with that I want to say that, considering whose attention he attracts, Hagee is influential):

If you hold such a view you support the rightest wing Israelis you can find - the people who, and whose policies, as Olmert so belatedly came to realise, have lost a sense of proportion. If there is the potential that the aforementioned religious views find reflection in US foreign policy toward the region and Israel that is something to discuss.

 

The link in that line points to an article about a farmer giving red cows to Israel, in preparation for an animal sacrifice (true Judaism includes many of these) which can be performed just about anywhere. The original sacrifice of the Red Heifer was performed 'outside the camp' while the Israelites were still in the desert. Typical sacrifices were performed on an altar in front of the Tabernacle (God's tent), but this was different. If they decide to do the sacrifice on the Temple Mount at all, I'm betting they won't do anything until, at the least, until the ground has already been cleared for the new temple. In that case, I think it's the clearing the grounds which will piss people off, not the animal sacrifice.

Now I'll agree that Hagee's position is way out there, but I do believe that the events described in Revelation will come to pass, mostly literally, and that requires a new temple on the Temple Mount, which pretty much requires the Dome of the Rock to be gone, or be integrated into it (wouldn't that be an Abomination that Brings Desolation in the eyes of the Jews?).

 

Even discussing the Jews / Israelis is dangerous. If you say one little thing that someone - -ANYONE -- misconstrues or chooses to misconstrue, then you are cast as Hitler's Bum-boy, a vile and odious person full of a hate that killed millions in gas chambers. It makes criticizing the policies of the present Israeli extremely difficult, which is sad because every government everywhere needs the check of honest and open criticism if excesses are to be avoided.

For anyone who cares about my opinion, the way I see it, Israel is surrounded by enemies who don't just want to defeat them for pride or exact some form of tribute, but rather want to exterminate them. Frequent attacks are made and many Israelis are killed. That kind of environment understandably breeds a little paranoia in people and governments.

So, they very likely use a machine gun where people in the US would use diplomacy. That doesn't excuse some of their more heinous excesses, but dammit, we're not there. They are. It's easy to sit around your apartment drinking a cool one, knowing that the odds are slim that someone's gonna launch a bomb at your residence, and criticize the Israelis for taking some pre-emptive action.

It's good to see an Israeli politician exploring the idea that other policies might serve the Israeli people better than the current ones, though.

 

I don't think shooting people with machine guns makes them or their families any less eager to exterminate you. In fact I think it makes them all the more eager to do so. Which I think is the crux of the problem. Unless the Isreaelis go for ethnic cleansing the Palestinians won't be disappearing anywhere so until then they'll have to deal with the problem. Preferrably in a way which minimizes casualties on both sides, and I doubt the machine gun option will be doing that.

I find it very strange that Ohmert is coming out with such opinions now, I guess it tells something about the current political climate in Israel. If he has held such opinions all this time he has done awfully well in hiding them. Amazing how politicians become a lot more rational once out of office.