James Lileks: Why sweat over Israel, anyway?
If the Democrats retake the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., will chair the Energy and Commerce Committee. They handle oil and stuff. Well, the guys with the oil will love this:
“I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel,” said Dingell on a local TV show. Maybe he’s on to something. After all, nothing works in the Middle East anymore; perhaps complete neutrality is the best of the options. But let’s review them first.
“The U.S. continues to support Israel. This is becoming difficult, since many important nations with well-dressed, urbane spokesmen have decided that Israel should stop its strange policy of bombing U.N.-run stem cell research facilities for no apparent reason. These diplomats will tolerate a little wartime madness — we all have our moments — but enough is enough, and now the Israelis must go home and sit in the basement and wait for more rocket attacks. If they’re good, they will get a snack.
“Strict Neutrality, or Dingellism. This may seem odd to some, given that one side consists of bloodthirsty religious lunatics who relish the indiscriminate killing of civilians, and the other is an Islamic social welfare organization reluctantly pressed into combat. Perhaps the West, in the name of fairness, could supply Hezbollah with the tools it requires. After all, it is manifestly unjust that Israel has such wizardly munitions on its side, and Hezbollah is forced to use crude devices made from disassembled Iranian baby-milk factory equipment. And it is rather condescending to believe that Hezbollah fires its missiles randomly without caring where they land; if it had access to precision munitions, it might aim more carefully.
Arming Hezbollah, however, might alarm its current patron Iran, which in turn would warn the French the U.S. is up to its crazy ways again. As the French foreign minister, M. Philippe Douste-Blazy (pronounced Vee-shee), recently said in Beirut: “We could never accept a destabilization of Lebanon, which could lead to a destabilization of the region. In the region there is of course a country such as Iran — a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region.”
Of course, he’s right. Without the steady, respected hand of Iran on the Middle Eastern helm, the Syrian regime might be replaced by pragmatic elements of the military unwilling to enjoy the boon of Persian dominance. One can excuse the occasional, inexplicable acts of Iranian mischief; the mullahs no doubt are busy destabilizing Iraq today, for example, but only to achieve a more stable future. (Would that our leaders had such foresight!) Granted, their rhetoric is hardly helpful — a New York Times photo of a billboard in Tehran shows the well-fed, adamant face of Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. The billboard’s English text reads “Israel must be wiped out the world.”
Extreme? Sure. That’s how those lovable nuts talk over there. You’d have to be nuts — or a Jew! — to take it seriously. But the billboard may suggest a third option.
“Abandon Israel and wait for it to collapse. Since the presence of Jews on holy Arab soil is the primary cause for dreaded “instability,” then a Palestine as Judenfrei as Gaza would calm everyone down. Everyone who remained, in any case. It would mean favorable oil terms from new allies. The money spent on foreign aid to Israel could be rebated to taxpayers in the form of “Fiddler on the Roof” DVDs, which they could study for the myriad ways in which the Jews antagonized the czar (with a new commentary track from Mel Gibson!). Best of all, the United States would be respected again. We would have allies. Respect and allies matter more than what you did to get them, after all.
Give them the Jews and they’ll leave us alone. Lord knows that always works. If you don’t want any surprises down the road, toss in Spain. Call it a signing bonus.