Regarding bin Laden in particular, he has identified Israel as a basis for his animus toward the United States, and I believe he did so before and after the 2001 attack. He also, I believe, is able to lather up plenty of dangerous anti-American sentiment by using the United States’ relationship with Israel as an argument.

If Israel isn’t relying heavily on the United States, why would anyone care whether the United States adopted a more neutral position concerning Israel’s conflicts with its neighbors? The reason, in my judgment, is that Israel could not long survive such a change in United States policy, at least not in any condition any sensible person would choose. I would not support abandoning the Israelis, even if the United States would benefit. But I also can not support the failed course of several decades.

What are my reasons? They include an unwillingness to subject Israelis to avoidable danger for ideological or religious reasons. I believe Israel’s current trajectory is likely unsustainable, even at great cost. Preferring dead and endangered Israelis to safe and free American citizenship seems a strange way of supporting Israelis. Inviting people into one’s home, for safety and prosperity, seems a bizarre way of exhibiting bigotry toward them. I would rather pay to relocate people, and give them a better life, than to pay to prop them up (as long as possible) as characters in some strange End Times or hard-line fantasy.

My proposal is merely a proposal. I would welcome better ideas. Without a better idea, it is difficult to foresee a rationally desirable outcome for Israel, even if the United States citizenry doesn’t change its mind about providing whatever level of American support Israel seems intensely interested in maintaining.

The Mighty ArthurK: Would our Marines in Beirut have been bombed? Would the sailors aboard the USS Liberty be alive today were the United States not devoting its military resources to defend Israel? Would we have encountered such bitter opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would al Qaeda have been motivated to attack Americans were the United States neutral concerning Israel?
One might reasonably argue that the American casualties, directly and indirectly associated with United States policy concerning Israel, occurred for worthwhile purposes. But to deny these costs — particularly with respect to the Liberty — seems pointless.
Unless and until Israel is prepared to operate without American dollars, American military commitments and restrictions on American foreign policy,

Let’s see. Our Marines in Beirut would not have been there had the US not pressured Israel to withdraw and squander a hard won victory against the PLO. The Marines were a quid pro quo for the withdrawal. So was disarming the PLO. The US welshed on both promises — ther first within hours after Israel withdrew, and the second a few days later when the stupidity of a Marine CO cost 300 lives in a bombing that could have easily been prevented by elemtary precautions.

Al Quaeda’s list of grievances after 9/11 focussed on the US presence in Saudi Arabia, which arose as part of defending Kuwait from Iraq — a campaign that needlessly endangered Israel, whom the US refused to allow into the coalition, and who suffered Iraqi attacks that the US refused to let Israel defend itself against.

The USS Liberty was not defending Israel or aiding Israel’s war effort in any way.

These are all readily available facts. So is the fact that Israel does not put “restrictions on American foreign policy” and that indeed it is the US that puts restrictions on Israel’s foreign and domestic policy.

There are indeed things to discuss about the relationship between the Us and Israel, but no meaningful discussion can occur with someone who consistently (and for reasons that I do not even care to guess) not only disregards readily available facts, but indeed inverts them and then, when called on it, repeats the inversion again and again.

Would our embassy in Beirut have been bombed were the United States not reflexively supportive of Israel? Would our Marines in Beirut have been bombed? Would the sailors aboard the USS Liberty be alive today were the United States not devoting its military resources to defend Israel? Would we have encountered such bitter opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would al Qaeda have been motivated to attack Americans were the United States neutral concerning Israel?

One might reasonably argue that the American casualties, directly and indirectly associated with United States policy concerning Israel, occurred for worthwhile purposes. But to deny these costs — particularly with respect to the Liberty — seems pointless.

Unless and until Israel is prepared to operate without American dollars, American military commitments and restrictions on American foreign policy, I believe it is reasonable for Americans to ask questions about and propose solutions to what has for decades been an expensive, bloody and generally unacceptable situation, particularly while many people advocate more of the same and no one has come up with a way to change the situation.

I am not anti-Zionist, as I understand the term, or pro-Zionist. I am not committed to a Jewish state in the “traditional homeland,” particularly if the commitment is heedless of cost or consequences. I am not committed to the lack of a Jewish state in the traditional homeland. But the current situation seems unsustainable and unacceptable. I would prefer that current Israelis be free and safe somewhere else instead of being endangered in their current location, particularly if the United States is footing the bill (in several ways) for the current location.

ArthurKirkland: Most of the relevant reference to “blood,” in my mind, involves the United States’ commitment to send American soldiers to die, if necessary, to save Israel.

I see. In other words, you are talking in the realm of fantasy and what if, and asserting that these things have already happened. This fits well with your fantasy of uprooting Israel as a self-governing state and offering citizenship In TX or WVa (would they be able to move to other parts of the US?) to those of her Jewish citizens who did not care to be slaughtered or deprived of legal rights in the Arab state that would replace it.

Didn’t another anti-Zionist write a novel along similar lines, but with the Israelis relocated to Alaska?

ArthurKirkland: I can’t follow these leaps

It’s very simple. You stated that America has paid a tremendous price in blood for its support of Israel> I reasonably interpreted that to mean that you thought US troops have been dying in Israel’s defense — a ridiculous and unsupportable charge that I am happy to see you did not intend to make.

During the cold war, however, Israel paid in untold blood for its support of the US, as the USSR scrambled to cultivate clients among the Arab states, arming and training insurgents.

Or not. Reporters can get their backs up about people who try to manipulate them. I don’t know Bronner, but people who’ve tried that with me (and many have) may not have gotten the outcome they expected.

ArthurKirkland: Should Israelis view that as an attractive, or acceptable, proposition? If United States budgets become as strained as it seems reasonable to expect, might not the enormous cost of defending Israel come to be regarded as a luxury the American taxpayer decides he is unable to afford?

Yankev: Those aren’t US troops fighting the terrorists, and the arms that Israel receives from the US were purchased by Israel, not gifts from the US.

Led to this:

ArthurKirkland: When did the discussion switch from Israel’s conflicts to terrorists?

Yankev: Pray tell which of Israel’s past and present conflicts have been fought by US troops? The US did station Marines briefly in Beirut in return for extorting an ill-advised withdrawal by Israel, who thereby gave up the advantages of a hard won victory against the PLO. Instead of staying to provide the promissed safeguard of Israel’s northern border, the US withdrew after 300 Marines died because of the stupidity of their CO who failed to implement elementary security against truck bombs. This is simply one illustration of why I find it so hard to understand your refrain that the US is fighting Israel’s conflicts.

I can’t follow these leaps (to “terrorists” and “fighting Israel’s conflicts”). My point is that the current (several decades) situation is maintained at great cost (paid in several forms) to the United States and at great jeopardy for Israelis. What part of that is controversial? That we side with Israel? That it is costly to do so (dollars, policy constraints, strained relations with others, military commitments)? That Israelis are not endangered by current circumstances? That Israel depends to great degree, likely to an existential degree, on American commitments?

ArthurKirkland: When did the discussion switch from Israel’s conflicts to terrorists?

Pray tell which of Israel’s past and present conflicts have been fought by US troops? The US did station Marines briefly in Beirut in return for extorting an ill-advised withdrawal by Israel, who thereby gave up the advantages of a hard won victory against the PLO. Instead of staying to provide the promissed safeguard of Israel’s northern border, the US withdrew after 300 Marines died because of the stupidity of their CO who failed to implement elementary security against truck bombs. This is simply one illustration of why I find it so hard to understand your refrain that the US is fighting Israel’s conflicts.

What I like about Orin or Ilya or Eugene is that they actually problem-solve. Listing various possibilities and then considering them. Even the possibilities that are not to their liking.

This shows a truth-seekingness. A sort of scientist-like curiosity. And the mind of an analyst that I would want if I were looking at a tough problem in business or the like and really trying to crack the nut and move forward.

Honestly, there may be all kinds of good reasons for serving in a foreign military. And you listed some. but the topic is worthy of some real discussion and thinking. And if you approach it purely as a partisan, we are unlikely to get anywhere towards the stellar Volokh salon experience.

It’s ok that you are not as smart as those guys…but could you try to be as thoughtful?

At this point you are changing the definition of Zionist to suit your own argument.

Perhaps I misunderstand. Does it mean insisting that Israel be maintained (regardless of cost or consequence) in its current condition and location? If so, it is unreasonable to examine or even question the issue of America’s contribution toward enforcing that preference.

If, on the other hand, it means desiring a good outcome for the residents of Israel, recognizing that abandoning them and mindlessly supporting them are not the sole possibilities, and hoping that all relevant factors and prospective solutions will be considering, I would be open to being a Zionist.

In general, though, US aid should come with US strings, which should include cutting off aid when the government pushes settlements in the West Bank, engages in the random destruction of Palestinian houses by settlers and others to build their settlements, and engages in other acts that will inflame the situation and make a two-state solution more difficult to achieve and encourage further terrorism against the US.

It makes no sense, from a US perspective, simply to side with the hard right or religious zealots in Israel and argue, as some do, that we should simply go to war against the Palestinians or evict them or let the Israelis kick them out. That war is not winnable and it would gravely harm US interests to try to win that war. And, it would inflict immense suffering on civilians and harm many people in the region, Jews and Arabs alike. Ultimately, the Jews and the Arabs are going to have to learn to live together, as the protestants and catholics are trying to do in Northern Ireland.

This blog post –which is over whether a reporter should be disqualified over covering the Middle East because of his son’s service in the IDF– just shows that any posting touching on the Middle East, like one touching on abortion, will inevitably bring out strong emotions on both sides and name-calling etc., and people immediately jump to debating the larger issues, and not the one raised by the original post. It is too bad, but that is the truth.

Those aren’t US troops fighting the terrorists,

When did the discussion switch from Israel’s conflicts to terrorists?

purchased by Israel, not gifts from the US

What is the volume, and proportion, of funds transferred from United States taxpayers to Israel? I have understood the volume to be substantial, and the per capita figure to be unusually high. If that is incorrect, I would welcome the correction.

ArthurKirkland: For example, what would happen to Israel were Americans to tire of supporting Israel’s current circumstances with untold billions of dollars, blood and the wearing of strategic handcuffs?

Yes, because everyone knows how Israel dictates US foreign policy. Keep digging, Arthur.

Why would one characterize “wearing of strategic handcuffs” to “Israel dictates US foreign policy?”

It seems difficult to argue that the United States has not (independently, and voluntarily) sacrificed some policy flexibility to maintain its defense of Israel. An allegation of Israeli control of American decision-making would be substantially different, and not, so far as I am aware, part of the current discussion.

ArthurKirkland: (advocating huge American commitments of money, blood and policy without discussion of whether the equation favors the United States).

At this point you are changing the definition of Zionist to suit your own argument.

ArthurKirkland: Should Israelis view that as an attractive, or acceptable, proposition? If United States budgets become as strained as it seems reasonable to expect, might not the enormous cost of defending Israel come to be regarded as a luxury the American taxpayer decides he is unable to afford?

Those aren’t US troops fighting the terrorists, and the arms that Israel receives from the US were purchased by Israel, not gifts from the US.

ArthurKirkland: For example, what would happen to Israel were Americans to tire of supporting Israel’s current circumstances with untold billions of dollars, blood and the wearing of strategic handcuffs?

Yes, because everyone knows how Israel dictates US foreign policy. Keep digging, Arthur.

You just want them to stop being Israelis and become Americans.

Is there any end to the commitment of American blood, money and policy that should be devoted to maintaining the current circumstances of Israel?

Would it be worth five times the current level of assistance?

Would it be worth ten American casualties a week?

Would it be worth far more intense restriction of American policy?

Unless and until Israel is prepared to support itself, these are reasonable questions.

If offering a life preserver to a person in distress seems opprobrious, it might be worthwhile to reevaluate the observer’s judgment. I have not seen or heard an explanation of why it is inapt to compare Israel to Centralia, a coal town whose residents, threatened by an underground fire, were relocated (not because of animus toward the residents, but because of a desire to help them, even if they wished to remain).

There is at least one distinction: The self-supporting American citizens of Centralia were forced to relocate. I propose consideration of an offer of American citizenship to Israelis, who would not be forced to move.

merely means supporting the idea of a self-governing Jewish state in the ancient Jewish homeland?

“Merely” seems misplaced if the context involves placing that goal above reason (placing off-limits any discussion of whether locating Israelis in their current location, regardless of costs or alternatives) and American national interest (advocating huge American commitments of money, blood and policy without discussion of whether the equation favors the United States).

[Bigotry towards your fellow Americans in Texas and West Virginia btw, is pretty bad too.]

Is it bigotry to note that the Pittsburgh Pirates — seventeen straight losing seasons, no reasonable expectation of improvement in the foreseeable future — are a failed franchise?

The most prominent difference between the Pirates and the Wests is that the Pirates occasionally finish third or fourth in their division. West Texas and West Virginia have a longer and more pronounced record of failure.

Those locations were not chosen randomly. They are failed communities that are shackling children (who deserve better than west Texas and West Virginia seem capable of providing) and acting as a drag on the American economy.

Part of the problem seems to be a lack of immigrants in what appear to be two insular areas.

Our aid is helpful to the Israelis of course but not life or death vital anymore.

Were that true, the United States, during a period of intense budget pressures and economic hardship, should stop providing unnecessary assistance to Israel. What would be the justification for sending superfluous dollars in Israel while American citizens are experiencing hardship?

I believe American assistance (boatloads of dollars, plus the promise American soldiers would die to save Israelis) is necessary to Israel’s survival, and that it should continue — during a reasonable period of revision to the current circumstances.

ArthurKirkland: I do not hate Israelis. But my concern for them is not grounded in religious dogma or warmongering right-wing ideology, so I propose offering American citizenship, and a start toward a better life (away from the deadly and unsustainable trajectory that is Israel under foreseeable circumstances) in west Texas or West Virginia, to every Israeli.

Yeah, you have nothing against Israelis. You just want them to stop being Israelis and become Americans.

Pat Buchanan feels the same way about Jews who live in the US. He just wishes we’d all become real Americans by joining his church.

David Bernstein: So if someone punches kid A in the nose, and kid B punches back, kid B is just as blameworth as kid A?

If kid B burns A’s house, kills his sister, and won’t let A’s family rebuild or buy groceries, much more blameworthy.

ArthurKirkland: Anti-Israeli venom? You are seeing spectres.

So you did not write that one cannot be both pro-American and pro-Zionist? Has someone else been posting in your name? Are you not aware that being pro-Zionist has nothing to do with the policies or actions of one government of Israel or another, and merely means supporting the idea of a self-governing Jewish state in the ancient Jewish homeland? Or that the ranks of the pro-Zionists have included justices of the US Supreme Court, a former Secretary of the Navy and ambassador to Mexico Josephus Daniels, governors of various states, and other American citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, who have loyally served their country?

FWIW, the notorious Israeli flag lapel pin features the American flag (in the position of honor, as befits any display of the American flag in the US or under US auspices) crossed with the Israeli flag, commemorating the common interests and values of the two democratic allies.

David Bernstein: So if someone punches kid A in the nose, and kid B punches back, kid B is just as blameworth as kid A?

Depends. Sometimes B is even more blameworthy, especially if B is Jewish and A is Arab. Witness the reaction to Operation Cast Lead.

orca: Ethan Bronner filed a report on the Goldstone report that quoted Binyamin Netanyahu, two Israeli generals, an Israeli professor, an anonymous Israel military officer and “Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem”…and not a single Palestinian.
Sounds like his critics have a point.

Then again, he did quote B’tselem, who has cooperated with fronts for Palestinian terrorists and generally opposes whatever the IDF or the Israeli government does.

The “vast” amounts of aid is a Buchanan paleocon theme. They harp on the “the enormous cost of maintaining Israel’s position”.

AK is more proof that the left and the far right are very close in their views.

[Bigotry towards your fellow Americans in Texas and West Virginia btw, is pretty bad too.]

Both reporters for the Times there have deep ties to the Zionist entity. The Reform Jews for whom the Grey Lady has replaced the Torah don’t want their progressive-except-for-Palestine world view disturbed, and the Times obliges them.

Let the Times hire a Palestinian reporter to work inside Israel and begin to cover the numberless crimes and flaws of the place. When that happens, I’ll show some grudging respect.

Rich Rostrom: Re SASQ: there has never been any suggestion that service in another country’s armed forces voids U.S. citizenship.

The U.S. State Dept. has no problem with you serving as a grunt in certain foreign armies, but says serving in its officer ranks might be construed as a desire to surrender your American citizenship.

Americans served in the Imperial Chinese forces in the 1800s. Frederick Townsend Ward was created a 3rd Class Mandarin for his service as organizer of the “Ever Victorious Army” (later led by a Briton, Charles “Chinese” Gordon); he had several American subordinates.

William W. Loring, who had been a colonel in the U.S. Army and a major general in the Confederate Army, served with the army of Egypt for nine years after the War. (He was recommended by William T. Sherman.) He later returned to the U.S. and ran for the Senate – and no one questioned his citizenship.

Neither did anyone question the citizenship of those who served in the Lafayette Escadrille, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, or the Eagle Squadrons. Nor was it ever raised with regard to the scapegraces who “joined the Foreign Legion.”

If the costs of aiding Israel were quantified for the American public, and Americans were asked whether they wished to maintain current levels of funding, is anyone confident about the poll results?

Even with continuing American willingness to shoulder the enormous cost of maintaining Israel’s position, the Israelis are in danger. They live in understandable fear. They dodge rockets periodically.

Perhaps moving the Palestinians would make sense . . . but would that enable the United States to avoid the cost of defending Israel? The cost to the United States taxpayer is no small part of this equation (I also favor removing or reducing American military personnel currently stationed in many countries), but not the sole factor. The Israeli’s well-being is also an important factor.

In my judgment, the current situation is unsustainable, even if the United States remaining willing to shoulder massive costs of several kinds. It is ridiculous to propose that it would be better to live, free and safe, in the United States, than to live under siege or die from violence in Israel?

My remarks about “running the place” are aimed at West Virginians and west Texans rather than at anyone — Israeli, Palestinian, Norwegian or North Carolinian — who would supplement them. Have you been to either location, or checked the results of the locals’ longstanding efforts concerning education, economy, health care, or other indicators of societal success? I have been to both areas; they were not chosen at random. I would not have the same expectations with respect to most American locations, but West Virginia and west Texas occupy the bottom of the barrel, for reasons that do not reflect well on the current populations.

Frankly, you can say we should just pay off the Palestinians to move here, or elsewhere, with more justification (I do not agree with that view either). The Palestinians, after all, were on the losing side of several conflicts.

Your remarks about the Israelis “running the place” do smack of anti-semitic views, akin to the “Jews owning Hollywood,” controlling the “press” etc., and they distract from any substantive points you are trying to make.

The Germans and the South Africans resettled undesirable populations too, AK

Why would you consider the Israelis undesirable? I believe this would be a rescue mission designed to benefit worthy persons in distress, and that the new Americans would better two backward portions of the United States. Win-win-win.

This would resemble the resettlement of the residents of Centralia. The residents of Israel are in great danger, and guarding against that danger is extremely expensive and reliably ineffective; the Israelis can’t protect themselves without enormous subsidy from American taxpayers, and even if billions are expended, the danger remains. Neither a diplomatic nor military solution has been found for decades, and no reasonable prospect for a solution is in sight (or, perhaps, reasoned imagination).

The American taxpayers would benefit greatly (just in case anyone who frequents this blog favors small government or libertarianism). The Israeli citizens would benefit greatly.

There may be a better proposal, but it does not appear to have emerged despite decades of intensive diplomacy and military action. Anyone with a better idea should step up to the batter’s box. But to try to slur this as a bigoted plot against people considered undesirable, or related to the actions of the South Africans or Germans, seems lame to the point of bizarre.

Here is my simple-minded analysis: if my daughter were fighting in a war for one side, I don’t think I would be able to be fair and objective to the other side, and I wouldn’t expect any other caring parent to be able to behave differently. So, I would not assign myself as a reporter to cover such a conflict or any other parent in my situation, except to write some sort of “human interest” piece (a parent’s view).