Yay Ned. Go Ned. Joe blows. Lamont in ’06. Get me a real Democrat.
I still believe all of those things. I swear. In fact, of that last one I’m more certain than ever — Ned Lamont is a Democrat because he’s quaking at the prospect of taking a tough stand on a real foreign policy position like he’s already in office. And that is a huge disappointment.
I’m still pissed at the whole party — not just Lieberman — for crapping the bed on Iraq. Very few people had the guts to come out against it as out-and-out wrong back in 2002 and 2003, even though, privately, I’m sure many of them were as skeptical as we were. When it came time to take a stand, remember, “Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Lieberman and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri voted for the original war resolution.” And they were hardly alone.
Today, TalkLeft pimps Lamont’s proclamation on Israel. All I see is the same hesitancy our “leaders” displayed on the Iraq issue when it mattered. Ned says:
At this critical time in the Middle East, I believe that when Israel’s security is threatened, the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure. On this principle, Americans are united.
Yes, it’s true. If Israel was actually threatened with invasion or destruction, most Americans would endorse our involvement in preventing it. Of course, this isn’t one of those times, is it? I would never defend Hezbollah or its criminal acts, but neither would I trump up the organization as a legitimate threat to the existence of the nation of Israel. Those who do are merely using it as an excuse to a) kill more Muslims or b) increase our control over the region.
Technically, Ned doesn’t say Israel’s security is threatened. That’s probably because, like any right-thinking individual, he knows it isn’t. But he doesn’t say that either, does he? No, in fact Ned implies just enough that he could defend either point when we can use hindsight to take the correct stance.
Wouldn’t it be nice if someone came out and said, “look, I’m all for protecting Israel, but in this particular case, they’re going too far?” As much as the wingnuts pretend like opposing Israel’s assault on Lebanon means you hate Israel with all of your heart, that isn’t true. You can take issue with this one action and still support the nation in general.
Instead, Lamont cowers. The middle chunk of his proclamation can be summed up as IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ, a topic he knows is now safe for a beating. He then sums up his position on the matter of Israel’s aggression:
It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself. Nor is it my place to make tactical recommendations to the president. But I do have some strategic suggestions about what our country should do moving forward.
After the fighting stops, the President needs to reengage in this part of the world and work on a peace settlement and a response to the humanitarian concerns in Gaza and elsewhere.
Maybe the US can’t “tell” Israel what to do, but seeing as how our weapons and the imposing figure we cut standing behind them are the reasons they can get away with this action, suffice it to say that it is for the United States to advise Israel on how to “defend itself” (and by “defend itself,” I’m sure he means “not destabilize the entire region even further by going on the offensive against another nation without fair cause”).
Notice that Ned says “after the fighting stops.” He makes no mention of the need for us to play an active role in bringing that condition into being. Even if you don’t want to take issue with Israeli justifications, surely you could call for us to step up our efforts to help tone the fighting down a notch, at least in the civilian-killing department, right? Sheesh.
This isn’t just a defensive response. Israel has been planning this course of action for some time:
More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail.
[Digression: I am _dying_ to know what slide background Israel uses for its top secret PowerPoints, aren't you?]
We don’t have to wait 2 years to look back and say that this level of response is unwarranted. We can do it right now.
It’s easy to say that Lamont must be careful not to step on any toes during this election period. Conventional wisdom probably states he can’t come out too strongly one way or the other for fear of turning people off.
But you know what? Lamont’s whole campaign is predicated on opposition to the Iraq war. Implied in this position is that if he had been in Joementum’s shoes, he’d have done things differently. And sure, I believe he would’ve jumped ship after it didn’t matter anymore, like so many other Demosheep. But right here, on this topic, he had a chance to prove he’s different, that he can and will tell it like it is on the middle east. Instead, he showed me he’s exactly the kind of person who’d balk at taking a risk to stand up for the right thing before he’s sure a majority of Americans agree, even if history will bear him out.
The Democrats are so scared of losing a vote that they appeal down the theoretical middle, where no one actually resides. I was greatly disheartened to find that Lamont is already demonstrating that same characteristic. So much for real change.
Yeah, yeah, vote for him and all that, but for those of you who are making him out to be the savior of the left, I have to say that his statements on Israel show me he’d have had no more backbone than anyone else in the party when we need it most.
Barack Obama part two.
That post really should have ended with “?” not “.”
You know, there is such a thing as smart campaigning when the opposite side is scurrilous enough to be throwing out anti-Semite charges.
Equating the secular state of Israel to the Jewish people is downright offensive to some Jews. That these people level this charge of Anti-Semitism shows they are ignorant about the multi-faceted view of the state of Israel that is prevalent among those of the Jewish faith.
norb,
he could at least call for less civilian death. seriously. would you really be _that_ scared of being called names for that? isn’t that _supposedly_ what he stands for in iraq (now that it’s safe to do so, anyway)?
if his whole thing wasn’t calling out joementum on his foreign policy, i wouldn’t care. but it is, and i do. and i think you should, too.
He’s a WASP running against a Jew who’s a pro-Israel hawk. Damn right he wants to avoid the anti-Semite charge.
zuzu,
you believe he can’t call for _less civilian death_? you know, like the rest of the world?
if so, then maybe he just shouldn’t say anything about it, especially out of the blue on his website. how about that?
look, you can make his excuses for him, all of you, but that kind of fear, the notion that someone will call you a name or say you hate america or israel or whatever, has infected the whole party. they won’t stand up before an election. they won’t stand up after one. when the hell are they supposed to say or do the right thing, exactly?
also, it occurs to me he’ll never win the super-pro-israel vote against lieberman anyway, if you think his WASPiness is such a big issue. maybe he’d find a few more dem voters willing to come out to the primary for him if he stood up and called for the radical notion of less innocent murder.
Damn right he wants to avoid the anti-Semite charge.
Look, any reasonable person knows that there is a difference between attacking the actions of the Israeli government, a secular body, and being against the Jewish people. We have to stress that as much as possible.
Great point, Jack.
We’ve gotten so scared of how they set the terms of the debate and national language (“anyone who questions Israel anti-Semite!”) that we forget to do the same (“uh, dude, disliking this one action doesn’t mean I hate Jews or even Israel. No doy.”).
One could support Israel yet oppose their current action? That too is taking a weak stance. What the hell does it mean, “support Israel”? Israel, like the UK and the US, is an organization whose only goal in life is domination, not only over their neighboring countries, but over their own citizens. Support Israel? I spit at the prospect. I understand how politick it is to “support Israel”, but there is no honor in it.
I don’t doubt he wants to avoid the charge. However, there’s nothing he can say or do that would help him avoid the charge, since Lieberman’s people will use it no matter what Lamont does. He might as well suck it up and not be a weinie.
Shorter Musclemouth: Saying that America should be its own nation is exactly the same thing as saying Britain has no right to exist.