Should the US go to war for Israel?

Here’s Ron Paul, speaking on the House floor:

While I absolutely believe that Israel – and any other nation – should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by US taxpayers and backed up by the US military.

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to “reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.” However, according to our Constitution the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the US.

Of course the people of Israel have the right to protect their culture – that’s the soul of their nation; keeping that alive means the country they fought for will live into the future. Every people has that right.

But the cultural preservation of a foreign nation is not any of our business. Worse, the entire debate takes on a bizarre aspect when you recall that the official policy of the US is to depose its own majority culture.

Think I’m exaggerating? Check out this “anti-racist” screed:

What is racism? Racism is more than individual prejudice based on race. Racism is the power of a dominant group, through its systems and institutions, to enforce the dominant culture’s history, values, practices and beliefs. It advantages those in the dominant group and disadvantages those who are not. It results in disparities.

I’ve racked my brain, and can imagine nothing more insane than a government that openly undermines the traditional culture at home while upholding the culture of a foreign nation.


delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

32 thoughts on “Should the US go to war for Israel?

  1. Morgan

    Israel: “Jump!”

    United States: “How high?”

    Israel: “Shit!”

    United States: “What color?”

    This is pathetic. An outrage. A great country like the United States allowing itself to be bossed around by some pissant Middle Eastern country. Red-blooded American patriots should not stand for this indignity.

  2. Kirt Higdon

    That’s the US Congress – everyone except Ron Paul. I think even the Knesset has more anti-Zionist members; at least there are a few Arabs.

  3. RedPhillips

    Sav, is someone posting under your name just to piss people off?

    If that really is you, consider Dale Carnegie. Seriously.

  4. RonL

    1. Congress doesn’t mean it. This is crass politics. We are still funding the Egyptian military despite it being taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. Heck, we just gave them a brigade of M1A1 Abrams tanks.
    Thanks to our TREASONOUS actions in Libya, which had us functionally allied with Al Qaeda, Libyan chemical weapons and anti-aircraft missiles are now in the hands of Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and the Muslim Brotherhood. This missiles have been making their way into the Sinai and Gaza. Now the lunatic neo-Jacobins like McCain want to help the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Syria.

    2. Many of Israel’s enemies are our enemies. Iran wants to destroy the US and Israel. And they have a nuclear program, which some delude themselves into seeing as civilian despite many of its locations being in military bases, and they are openly developing IRBMs.
    Despite our lunacy in supporting the Arab Spring/Jihad Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood is our enemy and its spawn Al Qaeda remains active.

    I don’t understand the anger at supporting the survival of an allied nation state. We are the hypocrites and fools, not they. The proper response is not to be angry at Israel, but ask our representatives why they do nothing to support our heritage and sovereignty.

  5. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author


    We agree. Make a point. Say something. Try to contribute.

    Otherwise, go back to your mother’s basement and play more video games.

  6. C Bowen (Hawthorne)


    I think the point is that why take time to discuss the absurdist question- RonL the exception that proves the rule- should the US go to war for Israel?

    We get why Ron Paul has to do it, but some advancement from there in the paleocon blogsphere helps keep an outlook healthy and vibrant, lest we end up writing columns on whether to expatriate or not, all having been lost in 2012, or 2008, or 1996, or 1865…

    Savrola is of course a questionable house guest as all people from the “state” of Missouri are.

  7. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    C Bowen,

    But I’m not asking for debate, nor am I considering the question – I’m answering it. I’m saying that it is insane for the US to back Likud’s policies. Case closed.

  8. RonL

    Which Likud policies do you dislike?
    Is it ending state monopolies and making Israel’s economy less state controlled?
    It is protecting the ethno-nationalist core of the nation?
    Is it kicking out foreign communists and anarchists?
    Is it making peace with Egypt (now in tatters thanks to combined Obama-neocon lunacy) and Jordan, even at the loss of territory?
    Is it supporting a two-state solution in theory, but demanding an end to terrorism first? (Netanyahu’s policies are to the left of Rabin)

    If you disagree with a policy of the Likud, please also tell us if it is unique to this party. Because, I suspect that you know the words Likud and Likudnik, but don’t know what they mean.

  9. Aaron

    I agree on the use of the magic word “Likud.” As used here and elsewhere on the “paleo” right, it doesn’t refer to a real political party, composed of real flesh-and-blood people. It’s some dark metaphysical entity.

    The current Israeli government has 94 parliament seats out of 120. The Likud party has 27 members in the parliament. Ehud Barak is one of the most influential people in the government, and he was from Labor (till he split off), not the Likud.

    I disagree with RonL about other things, but he’s right that people who go around talking about “Likud” like this don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. I still remember once, years ago, when Taki complained about something the Likud government had just done, while the Likud had been in the opposition for over a year. But Taki didn’t like what the government did, so it was Likud. I do agree with what you guys are saying about US support for Israel, but really, get a clue.

  10. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author


    By “Likud,” I’m referring to the militant party that claims Israel can ignore international law by continuing settlements in the occupied territories. That’s a specific charge against a specific party.

    The US has NO BUSINESS subsidizing these policies.

  11. Kirt Higdon

    I think a lot of people use Likud as short hand for Likud and allied parties or parties with similar views. This includes the Kadima, which up until day before yesterday or so was the pseudo-opposition to the Likud and is now part of the coalition. At least one Israeli writer referred to Kadima as “Likud light” and indeed the Kadima started as a split-off from Likud by the same general (Sharon) who founded Likud. And until recently the head of Kadima was Tzipi Livni, daughter of two Zionist terrorists.

    As far as policies are concerned, people throughout the world object to the cruel treatment of Palestinians and the warlike behavior of the Israeli regime. And many Americans, unfortunately not most, object to having their tax money spent to finance this bad behavior.

  12. roho

    It is really insane that we even notice Israel. The only reason is old fashioned bribery of our elected officials, and the millions of dollars that their dual citizens can bring to the outcome of a campaign.
    1. They spy on us worse than China.
    2. They had no business being able to steal another peoples land in post WWII.
    3. They had placed the original citizens of said land in an open air concentration camp.
    4. After illegaly developing nuclear weapons, unlike all other nations in the world, they refuse inspectors.
    5. While simultaneously claiming that no other nation in the ME has the right to nuclear technology.
    6. They openly comit assasinations around the world with impunity, as if it should simply be excepted as a minor issue.

    The list goes on and on. Bottom line is that some see Israel as an ally, and others don’t. America doesn’t need their sick and twisted policies. Only American politicians do……..And most of the youth of America is sick of their whiney, paranoid, politics. They are doomed, running out of time, like a mad dog thinking he rules the world………The sooner the better.

  13. Feltan


    Your framed your commentary in terms of culture – the U.S. is not defending its own culture, but here is a bill to defend Israel’s culture.

    I just don’t see it that way. I don’t believe the issue is “culture.”

    While I’ll agree that the U.S. is committing cultural suicide in several respects, the bill in question is not one in defense of Israeli culture, but rather the existence of the Israeli nation-state in the face of a potential nuclear Iranian threat. The bill is mostly grandstanding and hot air. It promised to do just about nothing other than sell stuff to the Israelis – which we do now anyway. I am going to speculate the purpose of this bill is not so much material aid (which, as stated, we give anyway), but to publically put all on notice that we are backing the Israelis. Why push a bill that is redundant with current policy? It is an election year, and I suspect that is all one really needs to understand why some tripe like this is making the rounds in the legislature. Even if it becomes law, nothing really changes.


  14. Feltan


    I did read the entire thread.

    Treason is not a word I would use to describe this bill. Perhaps “unwise,” or “Constitutionally suspect” would be as far as I would go.


  15. Aaron

    Savrola, you’re a moron, so I shouldn’t even respond, but anyway: If I’m so worried about the interests of my “co-ethnics,” then why do I agree with people like Pat Buchanan, Thomas Fleming, and Richard Spencer on the ideal US-Israel relationship? I support their policy for the US even though it’s very much against the interests of Jews. My objection to the paleo concept of “Likud” is an objection to willful ignorance, not an objection to the “Buchananite” policy. But you’re a retard, so this won’t get through to you.

    And my whole point, to Harrison Bergeron and others, is that “the militant party that claims Israel can ignore international law by continuing settlements in the occupied territories” is NOT a specific party. The Likud is center-right; the parties to its right, as well as some other parties, also share that view.

    As Edward Said and Noam Chomsky used to remind us, correctly, the difference between the Zionist center-right (Likud) and the Zionist center-left (Labor, at that time) in Israel is one of style, not substance. The housing projects in east Jerusalem that got people so upset a year or two ago were approved by the government during the time the Likud was in the opposition. Regarding Kirt’s mention of Sharon, I’m not sure what that proves, but remember that his roots are labor (left) Zionist, not Revisionist, and he never renounced that background. For those of you who are anti-Israeli, you should be happy with what I’m saying. It gives you more Israelis to be against.

  16. Kirt Higdon

    Aaron, I think the second two paragraphs of your comment pretty much make my case. People do in fact use Likud as shorthand for other parties which share the Likud’s views in substance even if their style is different. Your mentioning of Sharon’s labor party background indicates even more that people who say Likud when they mean the entire Zionist enterprise are not wrong.

  17. RedPhillips

    “I think the point is that why take time to discuss the absurdist question- RonL the exception that proves the rule- should the US go to war for Israel?

    We get why Ron Paul has to do it, but some advancement from there in the paleocon blogsphere helps keep an outlook healthy and vibrant, lest we end up writing columns on whether to expatriate or not, all having been lost in 2012, or 2008, or 1996, or 1865…”

    C Bowen, if that is what Savrola meant then why couldn’t he have just said that instead of being an ass and expecting us all to mind meld with him?

    Also, since there are plenty of people out there who do think the US should give a de facto security guarantee to Israel, I’m not sure what the drawback is to addressing that issue per se, especially when there is this Resolution which raises the issue directly.

  18. RedPhillips

    Ron is right that this is “crass politics,” but it also strikes me as audacious politics. This feels to me like friends of Israel are doing this just because they can and are essentially daring anyone to challenge it. This is public muscle flexing.

    Ron is also right that our support of the opposition in Egypt and Libya hasn’t done Israel any favors and has given us some strange bedfellows, but I doubt that many if any of the people who supported theses policies deliberately wanted to harm Israel’s interests. In fact, many of the hawks who were whining about what we were going to do in Egypt and Libya are likely very supportive of Israel. This is the fruit of our reflexive interventionism and the tendency to see every conflict as good vs. evil morality plays between dictators and freedom fighters. I know Ron is not guilty of the latter, but I think it is hard to disentangle intervention from this simple mindset. American style interventionism is predicated on the notion of the US as the all benevolent “leader of the free world.” Such simplistic and grandious conceptions lend themselves to simplistic and grandious conclusions.

  19. RedPhillips

    I don’t know if I’ll still be commenting at AmSpec. Hopefully I will be doing more of my own pontificating from my own platform, but I certainly do see the non-interventionists vs. interventionist dynamic persisting for the next ten years, unless we economically implode before then and policing the world becomes the least of our problems.

    Look at my reply to Ron above. Maybe it’s crap analysis, but it’s an attempt at analysis at least. No one has to guess what I’m saying.

  20. C Bowen (Hawthorne)


    I believe Sav. works on a serious character for criticizing dissident speech on paleoconish boards, which in the world of general pop cultural criticism, includes short replies of ‘snark.’ Tactically, he is suggesting to get better–whether it translates or not becomes unimportant.

    The kids want tactics.

    I watched, at convention a week back- a convention Ron Paul folks swept, a man in the latter half of his 60s, a Vietnam veteran, who 5 months ago never heard of Ron Paul–though running for Congress, yet less than a month later wore that garb at caucus, and now, in front of the state party suggest a war for the UN was treason–he got a standing ovation.

    I want to be clear: he suggested sitting Senators were….

    Treason sells, to borrow from Megadeth, but who’s buyin?

  21. Aaron

    If you say “Likud” to mean practically all of the Israeli political landscape including the Zionist left – which is what you now say it means – then your label is misleading, to say the least. It would be like referring to the current US administration as “the Republican administration,” which would be confusing and meaningless except ironically, in a “not a dime’s worth of difference” way – which is *not* the way paleos use the word “Likud.” There are already existing words and concepts that accurately denote what you mean: “the right” and “the national camp” more narrowly, and “Israelis” and “Israeli Jews” more broadly. These are accurate, commonly understood concepts. Why not use them?

    Generally, I think it’s a mistake for paleos and others on the right to invent their own private language with their own private words such as “Likud,” “cultural Marxism,” etc. – that is, to use previously existing concepts used in a new, private, and inaccurate way. (I’ve ranted before about the inaccurate label “cultural Marxist.”) Speaking in a private language makes you look like cranks.

  22. Kirt Higdon

    Aaron, speaking for myself, I prefer just to use Zionist; I was merely explaining the broad use of Likud by some people. And once again, you sort of make my case. Many refer to the Obama regime as the “Bush II administration” and point out the lack of difference between the Republicans and Democrats on substantial issues of policies. And this is not confined to paleos; it also is seen among leftists who have shaken off the Obama enchantment. And some Israeli writers of the now tiny “peace camp” persist in pointing out how Zionist left and right now pretty much constitutes a distinction without a difference.

  23. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author


    But since “Zionism” is the movement to create a Jewish homeland, and I support the right of EVERY people to have a homeland, I can’t say I’m anti-Zionist. I’m not.

    However, I do maintain that a national government is obligated to observe basic codes, such as NOT invading other countries and illegally taking their land. And the occupants of occupied territories MUST be treated humanely.

    So I condemn the faction of the Israeli government, Likud and its bloodthirsty partners, who claim they can ignore UN mandates and expect the US to blindly support them.

  24. RonL

    I’m analytical by nature. It isn’t a Jewish thing, it is an INTP thing. Then again, a lot of Jews have this personality type.

    The policies I posted were those of Netanyahu, not a crackpot like Feiglin, who belongs in the Moldet or Tekuma factions of National Union.

    So now you like international law? Putting aside the fact that the UN rewrote law to call the West Bank occupied, why should you care about international law? The anti-colonialists at the UN are now trying to force the US to give up land to the natives.
    Opposing these policies undermine the existence of the United States. You need not support aid for Israel, but if you use the language of the international left on this, you betray the United States.

  25. RonL

    Israel does not abuse the Jordanians in Jordan (¾ of Palestine). It does not abuse Egyptians in Egypt. The Egyptians and “Palestinians” in Gaza would be well off had they not torn down farms to turn them into missile launch locations. The Palestinians chose perpetual war with Hamas over peace, prosperity and state. Barak offered the PLO/PA over 90% of Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem. Arafat responded not with a counter offer, but with the planned Second Intefada. The Palestinians don’t want peace, they want a reprise of Khaybar. (the destruction of the last Jewish tribe in Arabia)

    Your taxes fund the PLO and Hamas run schools, that send children to their deaths as martyrs.

    1. No evidence of this claim.
    2. Stop undermining America. 1945, 1763, whatever.
    3. Why do you hate America?
    4. Please give up your personal guns to the UN, as they want
    5. Israel did not oppose the program of the Shah’s Iran. Islamists who openly declare that they want to destroy Israel (and America) and who are willing to take millions of casualties to do so are another mater. So which American city would you sacrifice in your desire to see the Muslims nuke Israel?
    6. In response to terror. And aren’t we doing the same?

    Israel is paranoid. Got it. And no Muslim wants to conquer the world. There aren;t Gullen schools all over America. 9/11 was a bad dream.

    Samson Blinded is a blog with a few dozen readers. You might as well say that Conservative Heritage Times represents the GOP.

    The measure was supported by Democrats to provide cover for the Obama regime funding the PLO in contravention to US law. Just when the story of Democrat perfidity comes out, they get to vote on a toothless, worthless, meaningless measure. It also give the Jacobins cover to aid the Muslim Brotherhood.

  26. Kirt Higdon


    I’m not in favor of the US funding any Palestinian group either or any foreign group at all. No foreign aid, no arms sales, and no US troops stationed outside US borders.

  27. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author


    From our founding, we have recognized that sovereign nations must deal fairly with one another. Article 6 of the Constitution says:

    “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”

    The US is a signatory of the UN. Article 39 of the UN charter prohibits aggressive war. By that article, the US and Israeli governments agreed to obtain the permission of the Security Council before launching an attack.

    Both governments are in violation of their own agreements.

    And I won’t even get into all the UN resolutions Israel has violated.

    That’s no way for a civilized power to behave.

  28. RonL

    Has Harry Hopkins possessed you? Are you channeling Ike or Rockefeller? Your argument is liberal and internationalist.

    The primary responsibility of a nation is to protect its survival and sovereignty. In a civilized neighborhood, one can sip tea, be civilized and ask for police protection. In the real world, in the Middle East, this is a delusion that gets you killed.
    Article 39 of the UN Constitution was a one-world socialist delusion of FDR and his communist State Department, the type of document that conservatives abhor. In the American example, let us remember that no Treaty may usurp Constitutional powers. Any such treaty is inherently void and it is the duty of a patriotic Congress to not ignore such a treaty, but to revoke it. Congress cannot give away its war powers to a foreign body.

    Regarding Israel, which of its wars was launched out of aggression?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>