There is No Argument Where There is Common Understanding of Truth

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Nov 9, 2010 at 18:55

America, as a national entity of international recognition, should not interfere with the sovereign existence of Israel, or any other legitimate and peace keeping nation, for that matter, which should be a given. In that it appears to the various American Administrations of times past and present that a need to solve the Middle East dilemma is a political problem to solve and America has been looked to for some form of leadership to obtain a solution, there is a conflict of interest for America to press that issue. But rest assured that America did not cause nor was the architect of the problems we see crippling the Middle East in its search for middle ground of existence for all concerned. The American intervention came later, not being crucial until 1948, and becoming critical in 1967.

It is conceded by most nominally peaceful nations that Israel has a right to exist. But as you have pointed out, to what extent is debatable. Then from the decidedly antagonistic enemies of Israel, that right in and of itself is debatable, to the extent that lives are lost in the argument. To get to a point of determination of Israel's right to a secure border, that right of existence must be irrefutably established, yet which we know from all evidences, such a right is not to be conceded by her enemies as long as the blood oath to destroy Israel remains in the hearts and minds of any who will still give breath to that oath. In that, the politics are lost in the extremist mentality, not to be resolved except by extra-political means.

So, for there to be the mindset that Israel's problems are political ones' does a disservice to the issue of peace in the Middle East, for we find the evidence contrary to peace to be the governing mentality in an obstructive way; and politics has not, since the time of Allenby's entry into Jerusalem back in World War One, been able to craft any semblance of a political solution for Israel and her detractors. This is because only until it is realized that a political solution is untenable in the human realm of logic, that an argument supra to human logic begins to realize its true form. That is to say, no secular solution to the issue that is Israel's right to exist will be found by any political means. In spite of the failure of secular solution to Israel's dilemma, however, Israel will eventually have her peace.

Now I will argue an opposing view to the imposition of 'division and rule,' at least as it may be suggested that it is solely an American imperative. There are indeed business interests in America that use American politics to achieve some form of what is suggested, but those interests are more global and international than being merely American. The global interests have indeed employed a number of tactics to gain an advantage with the energy resources and other treasures found in the Middle East; and the connection of being able to get at those resources are tied politically to the demands of the enemies of Israel, underscoring your suggestion that Israel is a pawn. Does America have a plan to solve this situation? In this observation that answer would also have to be: NO.

Now there is a supra-political reason for America to support Israel, but it defies the secular argument for trying to obtain peace at Israel's expense. It is that mindset by which those who claim to be true supporters of Israel are governed: the source of that mindset is where there is the determination that Israel will come through the difficulties the beset her, and no international interference is going to achieve a different outcome than that already promised to Israel. For that matter, the trustworthiness of the support for Israel does not originate from the people of America, but from the Eternal Sovereign that has overshadowed Israel with His faithfulness; and that faithfulness alone is what Israel will need to count on, not American politics, or the vengeful politics of the global international sort either.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".