Israel Temporarily Emulates -But Is NOt Derived From - Western Societal Culture

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Feb 11, 2013 at 16:02

While this observation may have a considered opinion of its specific premises that are shared globally and may seek to limit Israel's existence to a modern context only, the basic premise if flawed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the idea it is a derivation of modern history only by implying it is merely a western country. The history of the region taken in complete context defies that description and only in the interference by western culture, more notably the British and French with significantly German influences does Israel take on any of the imputations of western influences, the base culture of its ancient societal influences having been under attack and nearly purged since the times of the Romans. Those attacks and the adaptation of the Jewish people sent abroad and are now returned are the proximal reasons that Israel appears to have western influences; and such are the basis for the attacks by the oriental influences of the Muslim culture that seeks to replace Israel altogether.

The current American Administrative Executive does not appear to go 'against' Israel as much as his desire is to assimilate Israel into an international version of a non-Jewish state that would more easily fit into a global community compatible to his vision of the world. This means the inconsistency of Israel's current model of government needs 'tweaking' in order to make the transition into the United Nation's model of the 'new Middle East.'

From the Muslim perspective (not necessarily "Arab'), the two-state solution was a stillborn idea that was useful as a tool to deprive Israel from support of its own national integrity. Instead, the idea of 'Palestinian' statehood as it was introduce to the United Nations by Abbas and his cohorts is a step to setting up a recipient entity once they think they can destabilize Israel enough to get its charter for existence delegitimized sufficiently for replacement by the 'Palestine' state (read-no Jewish persons allowed). Further, the idea that English and western style consumerism be a basis for national participation in a Middle Eastern region long ago recognized for non-western antipathies is also contraindicative to any peace platform one might think to propose there.

Now, as for "American" support for Israel being Judeo-Christian based as reason to legitimize Israel's existence is limited for several reasons, not the least of which at this moment is Christianity's diversified interests in Israel's existence, ranging from Roman Catholicism's premise that Jerusalem should be an international city to the Evangelical perspective of the anticipated return of the Jewish Messiah at some time in the future. In between all of that, the Muslim community has its own designs as has been mentioned before.

American political influences over Israel have been spotty at best and Israel relying on the United States for its sovereign integrity is fast becoming a problem for which any solution that is internationally based is not going to work. War is on the horizon (and the premise for commencing war already in place) and no one, absolutely NO ONE, is going to be able to prevent it from happening, least of all the United States.

To say that Candidate Obama has limited options is a severe understatement; since from a certain perspective those 'Arab Uprisings' emanating from the Cairo 2009 speech are targeting those very issues for which war is the only result; and Israel will be the ultimate target. Candidate Obama will not only not be able to start it in the right direction, where America ends up in the aftermath will dictate how it will proceed from the resultant global confusion. Gov Romney would have been in no better position; for the policies necessary to make the appropriate adjustments in the region did not come from overnight changes, but decades and centuries of never getting it right.

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".